Forum menu
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/confirmed-us-israel-created-stuxnet-lost-control-of-it/
Intended target was a nuclear refining facility.... but the worm got out into the wild by accident! (apparently..)
Nasty people doing nasty things to eachother, it does sound like a movie script.
click on the link and a nano worm will eat another Iranian centrifuge
I have to think Siemens are pretty culpable in this one too.
Blimey. Working for Kaspersky has become a whole lot more interesting lately.
[i]Nasty people doing nasty things to eachother, it does sound like a movie script. [/i]
Sounds like a night out in town.
Dooomed
Seems quite sensible to me - who wants a nuclear capable Iran? Much better write a virus than bomb the f*** out of them.
footflaps - MemberSeems quite sensible to me - who wants a nuclear capable Iran? Much better write a virus than bomb the f*** out of them.
[dons Devils Advocate hat]
As the Yanks have been the only ones to use nuclear weapons in anger, why should we entrust them to make decisions?
[/and back away slowly]
As the Yanks have been the only ones to use nuclear weapons in anger, why should we entrust them to make decisions?
Facile argument. Totally different time/situation.
As the Yanks have been the only ones to use nuclear weapons in anger, both times on civilian targets, why should we entrust them to make decisions?
FTFY
Facile argument. Totally different time/situation.
Totally relevant IMO. American casualties/world dominance/show of force. What's different, apart from the wrapping paper?
Seems quite sensible to me - who wants a nuclear capable Iran? Much better write a virus than bomb the f*** out of them.
Well it might stop another war/invasion.
And what's the excuse for now going after their oil industry?
How many wars have the Americans started in the last 40 years? How many have the Iranians started?
How many terrorists have the Americans armed? how many the Iranians?
American armed BOTH sides in the Iran /Iraq war
How many terrorists have the Americans armed? how many the Iranians?
Seeing your point but assuming you bump into that wasps nest at the bottom of your garden you really won't care that it's been there for decades without harming you, or that the dog next door bit you last week.
molgrips - MemberFacile argument. Totally different time/situation.
Do expand on this as I'm genuinely interested in your point of view.
As regards Stuxnet, I think it was a very good operation, if not a little too good.
who wants a nuclear capable Iran?
anyone who wants to stop another pointless war for oil?
Seeing your point but assuming you bump into that wasps nest at the bottom of your garden you really won't care that it's been there for decades
good point best not attack the wasps nest then .....thank god no one is talking up that possibility
and apparently the US was responsible for a Russian gas pipeline blowing up, & the Russians blame them for the recent loss of their new airliner.
Cyberwarfare may get very sticky soon.
Ok, so nukes have a non-proliferation agreement and, quite frankly, you'd have to be mad to use them again on anything. Cyber weapons may not be as immediately and spectacularly damaging, but something like Stuxnet proves that they can cause physical damage. If Stuxnet was modified, who's to say that it could not be repurposed to hit something else instead of a centrifuge?
Where's the cyber weapon non-proliferation treaty?
Oh, and that was just one virus out of many flowing round the internet. If you want to be sensible, ban them all globally and make countries lock up the authors. I'm sure that will go down well with some countries.
If Stuxnet was modified, who's to say that it could not be repurposed to hit something else instead of a centrifuge?
Like an oil refinery or something?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-05-30/iran-computer-virus/55278440/1
If Stuxnet was modified, who's to say that it could not be repurposed to hit something else instead of a centrifuge?
It probably could, but the it would have to be the original authors doing so(being the only ones with the source code). In which case they would probably just start from scratch.
Iran as a country is totally bonkers and is run by people who are bonkers. They openly state they want to destroy Israel, they arm extremists in Iraq, ****stan, Yemen and Aghanistan. If they gained a nuclear capability it would be a really bad thing for everyone. Regardless of how ****ty Israeli and US foreign policy is or has been.
Americans have given Israel nuclear weapons but luckily they have a great record of behaving impeccably when it comes to using "attack as the best form of defence", I mean that illegal white phosphorous attack on gaza and the UN just sort of happened by magic didn't it ?
Iran having nukes may actually stop the silly ****ers for a while.....or start world war 3, but hey they're liked by the yanks so that makes them the good guys doesn't it
nonesense are you suggesting north korea and ****stan are stable countries you would give the bomb too? We also had communist russia, China and South Africa
Why be more worried about Iran than them ? the real reason is if you have nukes no one can bully you that is what we fear -well and israel doing something as their track record of offensive defence is rather long and inglorious. Offensively it is a useless weapon. It's like me having a grenade in a room with you. It is of no use in helping me win the fight but I can take you with me thatis what nukes give you, everyone leave you alone.
FWIW france and the UK gave israel [ the technology to make]nukes rather than the US
Much better write a virus than bomb the f*** out of them.
Except the irony seems to be that Fukushima was struggling to shut down due to technical issues, which indicates that the worm also struck there, and now the US is being hit with the radiation fallout from Japan.
Do expand on this as I'm genuinely interested in your point of view
Right, well with regards Hiroshima etc
1) There was already a full scale world war on so it didn't do much that wasn't happening already - it just did it all in one go.
2) The bomb was way less powerful than a modern one
3) 30 years of cold war angst had not happened
4) Many people thought (and still think) that by bringing a terribly bloody war to an end very quickly it actually saved many many lives
5) It was the first time it had happened, no-one had seen the consequences.
It's like me having a grenade in a room with you.
Or maybe like having a bomb strapped to your own body, perhaps? Hmm.
Not sure what are trying to say there re strapped to you tbh.
I dont disagree with your view re America and the nukes in WW2.
You said that nukes were a useless weapon because you kill yourself at the same time as everyone else due to retaliation. I was trying to say that some cultures might not view that kind of death the same way.
Not saying that Iran would think that way - it's pretty drastic, and you'd have to stretch things to consider nuked civilians as dying honourably in battle, but you never know.
they key there would be in battle -they may do it defensively but offensively?
The regime would be destroyed by the subsequent attack and what is the point being the dead ruler of a barren nuclear wasteland? That why I think it is unlikely a sate would use them that is bonkers as they crave power above all things. Take North Korea as batty as can be but any attack means the end of the regime so our dear leader [ is this one just honourable?] wont use them as it is to kill yourself and your power base.
I think this applies to all states.
I understand why some may be sacred but the fear but I think it is misplaced. we dont want them to have the power to stand up to us IMHO. Probably easier to befriend russia and china if syria is anything to go by
who wants a nuclear capable Iran?
Me !!!
I think it's an excellent idea. After all, unless they've been lying to us for the last 60 odd years, two potential enemies having nuclear weapons is the best way to guarantee peace.
Even Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister and Defence Minister, thinks it's a good idea that Iran should want nuclear weapons :
[url= http://www.lobelog.com/ehud-barak-if-i-was-iran-i-would-probably-want-nuclear-weapons/ ]Ehud Barak: If I was Iran, I would “probably” want nuclear weapons[/url]
[b][i]I don’t delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel. They have their history of 4,000 years. They look around and they see the Indians are nuclear. The Chinese are nuclear, ****stan in nuclear as well as South Korea, not to mention the Russians.[/i][/b]
Sadly it appears that Iran has no intentions of acquiring nuclear weapons, well that's what the Israeli military chief reckons anyway:
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2012/apr/25/israel-benny-gantz-iran-unlikely-develop-nuclear-weapons ]Israeli military chief: Iran will not decide to make nuclear weapons[/url]
[b][i]Israel's military chief, Benny Gantz, has stated he doesn't believe Iran will decide to make nuclear weapons and that Iranian key decision makers are rational. [/i][/b]
And US intelligence agrees with him :
[url= http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iran/iran-no-nuclear-programme.htm ]Iran hasn’t got an active nuclear weapons programme, says US intelligence[/url]
[b][i]According to the US intelligence community Iran hasn’t got an active nuclear weapons programm. Israeli intelligence agrees with this view
The US intelligence community set out this view in a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in November 2007. It remains the view of the US intelligence community today.[/i][/b]
So it appear a nuclear imbalance will remain in the Middle East. Although I guess that if the West continues to threaten Iran with attacks and invasion then they might hopefully change their minds and acquire nuclear weapons, thereby averting war.
They openly state they want to destroy Israel
Oh that old chestnut? Quotes please.
Like many people I openly want to see the Zionist State destroyed, in much the same way as I wanted to see the Apartheid State destroyed. It is a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold. I don't expect to be physically attacked for having that opinion.
Seems to me we're having the wrong argument here, about nuclear weapons... When you ask the question "Who should be allowed to have them", the answer isn't "Well America, Britain, maybe Israel, but not Iran or ****stan..." It's "nobody at all"
northwinds right the idea that anyone should have a weapon that can kill hundreds of thousands of people at once is insane
So they've been lying to us for the last 60 odd years then ........... nuclear weapons aren't a good idea because they don't keep the peace ? 😐
Well actually now that I think about it, the US and the UK have been in quite a few wars in the last 60 years, despite having nuclear weapons.
we dont want them to have the power to stand up to us IMHO
I dunno - possibly, but maybe we just don't want another cold war on our hands. The west went through that already.
If other states had not been 'allowed' to have them the West might have a stronger case.
ernie_lynch - MemberSo they've been lying to us for the last 60 odd years then ........... nuclear weapons aren't a good idea because they don't keep the peace ?
Is the cold war still going? Some people would debate whether MAD ever really worked- I don't have an informed opinion. But it's done with.
but maybe we just don't want another cold war on our hands
What's wrong with cold wars ? They seem to me infinitely better than hot wars, of which we have plenty. At least people don't have to die.
We're currently doing a lot of control systems security work and I've been following Stuxnet in detail since the day it broke. I actually wrote an article around where it came from which i will dig out - we suggested that it was a western country, large, eat hamburgers a lot !
The whole space is quite interesting and we did some specific test work which activated pcls - a PoC for a new prison where we could open the doors remotely stuff like that. The centrifuge thing is actually more to do with the controller logic, similar pcls exist in lots of other scada and control systems - electricity transmission, generation, water, gas, nuclear etc. As well as weird stuff like nfc and autmoated medical pumps - i theorised about how you could compromise an insulin pump, it is possible in theory at the moment. Anyway, the sky is falling in so i better go now !
Some people would debate whether MAD ever really worked
It worked in the sense that it stopped a direct NATO v Warsaw Pact war but it didn't work in the sense that it just channelled that military confrontation into proxy wars in other countries which killed millions. The Cold War probably seemed pretty hot if you were in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, El Salvador, Iran, Iraq etc.
At least people don't have to die.
When the death certificates of someone who 'died' in the Cold War were produced, you really don't think they could legally say, "killed by enemy gunfire" on them did you?
Islamists have a tendency to martyr themselves in the name of their god, for the greater good they willfully forfeit their existance and those around them.
Iran is full of Islamists, crackpot shouty head slapping Islamists. Lots and lots of them.
But of course, lets compare them to the US in 1945.
Its PC gone mad I tells ya.
Iran is full of Islamists, crackpot shouty head slapping Islamists. Lots and lots of them.
Makes you wonder why the Iranian government very strongly condemned the 9/11 attacks on the US, why they are so anti al-Qaeda, why they helped, first of all the Northern Alliance, and then the US, to overthrow the Taliban (which they condemned as dangerous extremists from the very start) in Afghanistan, doesn't it ?
But perhaps you don't mean the Iranian [i]government[/i] ? Perhaps it's the Iranian [i]people[/i] you mean when you say Iran is full of Islamists, crackpot shouty head slapping Islamists. Lots and lots of them ?
But of course, lets compare them to the US in 1945.
You think that Iran is at the same stage of development as the US was in 1945 ?
Well at least they've still got rock n roll to look forward to then.
enfht- that the spirit buy into the hysteria , be scared for your very existence and dont forget to portray them as mad men willing to die for what they believe in
Nice trick draging in Islam to
Thanks for all your hard worl
Yours
paranoid right wing neon cons the world over
Remebers spread the word and the word aint love its fear ...remember we need to be so scared of this third rate non nuclear non warmongering state that we can justify invading so keep it up. DO believe the hype.
Where in the article does a current member of either the us or Israeli governments admit to writing stuxnet? As far as I can make out some guy wrote a book claiming it to be true.
It probably was but it's hardly proof, just some guy who wants to sell copies of his book.
The whole point of doing this sort of stuff is we cant prove it
We cant prove it was western agencies killing scientists in Iran either but frankly who else would target their country?
The post is titled US and Israel put their hands up. They patently haven't.
As for western agencies being responsible, seems equally likely to be Israel to me.
The post is titled US and Israel put their hands up. They patently haven't.
They have pretty much so by being happy that allegation should be accepted. This article in the Telegraph claims that the Obama Administration deliberately leaked the information for political reason, ie, they want everyone to know that it was the US government wot done it :
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9305704/Barack-Obama-ordered-Stuxnet-cyber-attack-on-Iran.html ]Barack Obama 'ordered Stuxnet cyber attack on Iran'[/url]
[b][i]Commentators suggested that confirmation of American involvement in Stuxnet had been released by others to neutralise any Republican election claims that President Obama has been soft on Iran. [/i][/b]
You would hardly expect them to release the information in the form of a press release. But they appear to be perfectly happy with the result.
No sorry, some guy saying there is confirmation does not make it so. They haven't accepted the accusation, nor have they denied it, this proves precisely dick.
well that's conclusive then.commentators suggested
As a commentator I suggest that this is a conspiracy propagated by the neoliberal elite, who are fronts for the knights Templar who are in fact pan dimensional lizards. They did this to avoid accusations of communism.
If they don't deny it then it must be true.
Actually if Stuxnet stops nuclear proliferation, everyone should have it, like yakult. *
(* I know it's a bit more technical than this, It's actually pretty cool if you ask me, but then I'm a PLC geek)
No sorry, some guy saying there is confirmation does not make it so. They haven't accepted the accusation, nor have they denied it, this proves precisely dick.
Of course they have accepted it, and the fact they haven't denied it proves quite a bit, not "precisely dick". It is however classified information as the olympic games programe is still on going, so they are hardly likely to hand out glossy brochures on the subject.
But I can see that this is as pointless as trying to prove that the US government wasn't responsible for 9/11, or that they did land on the moon. So yeah OK, as you claim, this revelation is exactly the same as claiming [i]that this is a conspiracy propagated by the neoliberal elite, who are fronts for the knights Templar who are in fact pan dimensional lizards. They did this to avoid accusations of communism.[/i]
It's just like that.
:rolls eyes:
enfht - MemberIslamists have a tendency to martyr themselves in the name of their god
Number of muslims in the world- 1,650,000,000.
Number of martyrs per year- small.
Tendancy to martyrdom?
Just for the record, I am fully supportive of our lizard king masters.
I am at your command, scaly lords of the universe...
enfht - MemberIslamists have a tendency to martyr themselves in the name of their god, for the greater good they willfully forfeit their existance and those around them.
Iran is full of Islamists, crackpot shouty head slapping Islamists. Lots and lots of them.
But of course, lets compare them to the US in 1945.
Its PC gone mad I tells ya.
Lets see
Wars outside own country in the last 30 years
Iran - zero
US - Iraq (twice) Afghanistan, Grenada Etc etc
Arming terroists
Iran - possible involvement in small scale
US - Long term arming of terrorists on a large scale - contras in south america, ( remeber the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair ]Iran / contra mess)[/url] Armed the taliban, armed both sides in Iran / Iraq war,
Support for dictators?
Us wins again with its puppet dictators all over the world
Now jut which country is responsible for more deaths? Just which country is responsible for more wars?
Iran - zero
Well, apart from Lebanon and Afghanistan, that is.
You mean the non-existing Iranian troops in Lebanon and Afghanistan.......a bit like the very real US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Iran invaded Lebanon and Afghanistan? wasn't in the news. when did this happen?
I think konabunny was trying to use that old zionist sympathiser fallback that Iran has been involved in covert activities in Lebanon and Afghanistan. Whilst there is certainly some truth that Iran has been involved, some of it quite openly, in helping to overthrow the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and kicking the Israelis out of Lebanon, you hadn't even began to mention the US's mindboggling level of involvement in covert actions to overthrow governments throughout the world for decades, or all of its extensive wars by proxy.
You concentrated on the US's air, land, and in the case of Iraq sea, attacks, on Afghanistan and Iraq, despite neither country bordering the US. There is of course no comparison with Iraq despite Iraq previously having two very hostile neighbours on its borders. So konabunny did the best that he could and scraped the bottom of the barrel.
Hey Ernie, the real world called, they were wondering how that whole entirely black and white thing was going?
only Zionists were involved in covert activities, fact, any other view is fascist.
How do we know this, well I dont see a denial, must be fact.
You are probably reading this frustrated that I must be a us sympathiser as opposed to a pragmatist.
it amazes and perplexes me that grown adults, some of them seemingly intelligent regular posters on this forum, are willing to sit so eagerly at the western dinner table, knives and forks in hands.. hungrily sniffing the sweet aroma of the steaming propaganda that is served up to them before greedily devouring the oily bullshit with blissful looks of ignorance on their greasy faces.. belching their indignation as they pat their bloated bellies..
Hey Ernie, the real world called
Yes and I paid attention. Perhaps a few other people should do too, and not just regurgitate what the US neo-cons tell them ?
garrrrpirate
The point is that the US are guilty of far worse warmongering and support for terrorism than Iran but the US are seen as ft to have nukes but Iran is not.
yunki is irvine Welsh and I claim my mescalin
In truth I wish I had written that poetic and insightful.
The point is that the US are guilty of far worse warmongering and support for terrorism than Iran but the US are seen as ft to have nukes but Iran is not.
At no point have I disputed this.
What I do dispute is that the US have held their hands up and admitted anything. Someone has written a book claiming the US wrote stuxnet, that is the sum total of the evidence. It is reasonable to assume that the writer has a vested interest in their verion of events.
Because the US haven't denied it, it seems to have been taken as fact. It probably was them, but there is nothing beyond someone wanting to sell copies of their book to prove it.
yunki is irvine Welsh and I claim my mescaline
I was thinking of myself more as a fallen Pam Ayres but I'll take the compliment.. 😀
It is reasonable to assume that the writer has a vested interest in their verion of events.
I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that the writer has a vested interest in that version of events......what do you know about the writer then ? Do tell.
Oooooh, let me take a wild stab.
Maybe its because he stands to make money from it.
So far your proof is "this writer said that these un-named officials said..."
"Iran invaded Lebanon and Afghanistan? wasn't in the news. when did this happen?"
I didn't say Iran invaded either of those countries. Iran was engaged in wars there.
Oooooh, let me take a wild stab.Maybe its because he stands to make money from it.
Well that's a pretty poor stab - why would he make money out of that particular "version of events" ?
What do you know about him ?
And of course you still haven't explained why the US administration are clearly very happy for his [i]version of events[/i] to be widely accepted by the whole media throughout the world. But I've given up on that one.
In what way are they "clearly very happy"? They've said nothing about it? That's not proof, its not even refined speculation, it is what is, that being nothing.
Governements don't comment on lots of things, that doesn't make them true, no matter how hard you want it to be.
As for the writer, well I know he has written a book where he makes these claims, he will sell that book for money. He could make money from any number of versions of events but seeing as these are the ones in his book, I would reasonably assume he has a vested interest in the way he tells it.
Confirmed is a fairly binary adjective, it is either confirmed or not, where is the confirmation?
I can see you are desperate for this to be true, it clearly dovetails beautifully with your belief system. It probably is, but I'm merely pointing out that nothing has been confirmed, there is no proof and that the guy making these claims has something to gain from them.
OK, the US has tacitly admitted that they are responsible for the stuxnet malware, the media throughout the whole world has reported this, for reasons of the bleedin obvious they can't "officially" admit to it. I really can't see a problem.
I'm merely pointing out that nothing has been confirmed
Yes I noticed that, well done.