Was Russia Behind Stuxnet? 281
An anonymous reader writes "Despite the U.S. and Israel being widely assumed to be responsible for Stuxnet, Russia is the more likely culprit, says U.S. Air Force cyber analyst. The nuclear gangsterism of the past 20 years gives it plenty of motive. Quoting: 'So what better way to maintain Russian interests, and innocence, than to plant a worm with digital U.S.-Israeli fingerprints? After all, Russian scientists and engineers are familiar with the cascading centrifuges whose numbers and configuration – and Siemen’s SCADA PLC controller schematics – they have full access to by virtue of designing the plants. ... the observers of the virus could alert the Iranians before full nuclear catastrophe struck. The Belarusian computer security experts who 'discovered' the code seemingly played that role well. They didn't seem too preoccupied with reverse engineering the malicious code to see what it was designed to do.'"
Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's all trust the U.S. propaganda machine. It was the Russians.
Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Centrifuges can't cause a catastrophe, other than of the "oh shit my centrifuge just came apart and shredded my lab" kind. There is not a nuclear chain reaction to go out of control here.
Fix the stupid bugs! (Score:2, Insightful)
Governments would be wise to focus on securing the code they use rather than attacking the enemy. We already have attack capabilities and adding hack capabilities may not be nearly as valuable to nations with significant resources. On the technical front though ANY tiny nation or group with even few resources can threaten you if your code is bug ridden.
Yeah, Riiiight... (Score:1, Insightful)
Cause in case of a sheep missing, you trust the wolf on saying it was really the bear. Riiiight. ^^
The only thing I know for a fact, is that I have not experienced any of it with my own senses, and so everything I think I "know" about this subject comes from other people, probably all of which have also not experienced it with their own senses but gotten it from even more sources, and so on and so on. With everyone in all those chains having their own set of perceptive biases in their senses and brains, and their own interests.
I can choose who to trust and who not. But most people just trust whatever fits their own model of reality best, disregarding that it might be wrong.
And the same is true for everyone of you too.
So unless it has a noticeable effect on me personally, instead of wasting my mental resources on this, I use them for something that has a bigger effect on improving my life and keeping what I have. :)
How about you?
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond the obvious fact that we will never know for sure who actually created it, it seems pretty naive to think a US 'cyber analyst' would say or even think anything different. After all Israel is a close US ally so it isn't like they would be interested in "telling the truth". It's like the boy who punches the other boy behind the teacher's back, of course he is not going to rat itself.
So how is this a credible source? Maybe if it came from a team of international security researchers with evidence or something I would deem it a valuable piece of analysis.
I kinda see this "research" as the ones conducted by Microsoft to evaluate IE, or Google to do so with Chrome and, oh surprise, they always come ahead. More like a political thing to say than any actual useful information or analysis being brought to light.
Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's not a case of assuming a US citizen couldn't speak ill of the US; more a case of assuming that if the military is paying him to say this, it wants this version of events propagated (note that the piece doesn't provide any evidence pointing to the Russians. His argument is basically, "Well, they could have. And if we make a bunch of assumptions, they might have wanted to as well".).
Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
The Iranians wrote it themselves . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Their scientists are under a lot of pressure from the government Mullahs to finally get that bomb finished. Faced with insurmountable technical problems, the scientists decided to make it look like their project was sabotaged by their enemies: Israel and the US. So they wrote a virus and infected themselves with it.
So now their scientists have some more time, and the Mullahs are happy, because they can play the thing up with their own people and the international theater.
Ditto on that US drone thingie.
If you don't like that one, I'll half-bake another wacko conspiracy theory the next time this story pops up again.
Maybe I could make the "27 Club" responsible . . . ? Robert Johnson, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse are not really dead, but are writing viruses on Marlon Brando's island near Tahiti . . .
Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know. This seemed like a pretty specifically targeted piece of hardware.
Dumbing it down a whole bunch here, but say that the virus modifies the CENTRIFUGE_MAX_SPEED variable from X to X+100 or something. It's affecting a specific piece of software. It's not as if the ventilation or reactor rod system run on the same software, and even if they did it would be doubtful that they would be affected by the same command.
Re:Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that nobody was caught with a hand of any color, which is basically why stuxnet was such a significant piece of work. You negate your own credibility by calling this inaccurate propaganda when you, in one poorly-constructed sentence, make inaccurate and baseless accusations.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
Inventing fairytales about Russian double indirection to damage America is way too complicated, and believing an American intelligence analyst about the fairytale existence of a double indirection by Russia just to attack America's reputation (ie not even a real attack) is even more complicated.
KISS.
Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. (Score:4, Insightful)
nuclear gangsterism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? "nuclear gangsterism"? This is a pretty specific phrase, out of a specific book. It doesn't exist anywhere else on the internet but in summaries about that book, and in this slashdot article. Anyone care to comment on how this phrase ended up in the slashdot summary?
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering Slashdot is slight more anti-American than the Taliban that's obviously not true.
Sorry, but I won't sit still for that. As a European who has always tried very hard to be cosmopolitan - a citizen of the world, and a member of the human race, rather than any kind of nationalist - I find that Slashdot is quite sophisticated technically, a bit less so politically, and actually exhibits a quite noticeable pro-American bias.
Of course there are exceptions: I'm one of them. And there are a few people who blame everything on America. But what I'm saying is that, even among apparently sensible, well-educated, reasonable Slashdotters I find that, on average, there is a slight but very definite US "home team advantage". And that is quite natural, seeing how many Slashdotters are American; there's nothing wrong with patriotism and pride in your country.
yes i will comment. (Score:4, Insightful)
why do people write shit for slashdot? because they are intensely interested in a subject.
why are they intensely interested? because the subject moves them emotionally.
you have an inherent conflict of interest. you need to be emotionally detached to be a good reporter, but you wouldnt be writing in the first place (for free no less) unless you had some emotional spark that inspired you to do it.
normally, editors will balance the emotions of the reporter, but slashdot editors often leave stuff in that a newspaper editor might remove. on the other hand, newspaper editors are increasingly beholden to their corporate masters these days. so whatever.
when i wrote a story saying an innocent man was innocent, people said i was being too emotional. well, i disagreed, but i cant disagree that it is right to question authors about this type of thing. its the nature of writing.
Re:Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US wanted to, they could have nuked the entire Muslim world after 9/11, given the popular mood in the country.
Not without facing enforced disarmament and decades of sanctions from the rest of the developed world. This is a very bad American stereotype you are bandying around here. 'We can do what we want because we got the bomb and people should be grateful we don't just nuke them into the stone age..' There is a whole world out there and America becoming a rogue nuclear state would not go down well with the rest of it.
Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. (Score:5, Insightful)
A controlling minority in Iran is doing really stupid things. That justifies bombing them back into the Stone Age? I think the Stux virus is a stroke of genius. Whether Conficker was the delivery vehicle, or a USB drive, I don't care. It did the job peacefully of screwing up Iran's fueling program. What's to say it can't be done again? Why spend all of the weaponry when it can be done inside, without the loss of life, without a huge cost?
The Persian people still have a chance of overthrowing their repression.
If you use nukes, you open up a Pandora's Box that you probably won't be able to close. You'll give every terrorist idiot a reason to become martyrs using equal or uglier tactics.
The regime in Iran, if they were to use nuclear weapons, would probably point them towards Israel. It would be the last thing they ever did. Instead, they want to play politics, and taste the power that comes by being India, Pakistan, etc. It's all about their sense of power, and respect, and ego.
Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. (Score:1, Insightful)
If you were not such an idiot you would not base your opinions on propaganda. 90% of the Iranian government ministers have a PhD (they "might" be evil but not stupid, even though US is in the hand of blood thirsty warmongers which are 100 times more evil) and the country has at least 10 million university graduates and your picture from the country is possibly a desert with camels etc.!! (which is typical US citizen picture of all middle eastern countries).
Why would they? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't make the slightest sense. A strong Iran is in Russia's interest. If Russia wanted to keep Iran from building a bomb they could just stop supplying nuclear fuel and know-how. Or they could sabotage those plants in much more direct ways because they have access.
And if the Israeli military is not involved they're certainly playing their role well. They seem to be quite proud of Stuxnet -- rightfully so, except that they should have concealed it longer. That "the US defence and intelligence communities" might have been "caught with their pants down" is not an argument. Not everything Israel does is vetted by the US. Frankly, if I were an Israeli official I would prefer not to involve US agencies, because they have little to contribute and are a security risk.
Propaganda... Go watch "Dancing With The Stars". (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahmadinejad doesn't just not get along with Israel, but calls out for the destruction of Israel pretty much any time there's an open microphone nearby
You're aware this was a (I assume deliberate) mistranslation of what was actually said? Google "Iranian mistranslation". It is however convenient for those who want war to repeat the propaganda.
He does so even though Israel has never done anything bad to Iran
You have evidence there have been no covert attacks? Your sources are clearly better than most. There are strange explosions happening in Iran at strategic sites. You think they are accidents? Who is the most likely culprit? Who is the most likely culprit for stuxnet?
You also forget that Iran spends millions of oil dollars every year funding terrorist organizations whose sole purpose is to harm and kill American and Israeli civilians.
Perhaps they see themselves as freedom fighters.
You are looking for simple black and white, good and evil; like the movies, and the people who's agenda that serves will be more than happy to serve it up to you on a platter. You should just go back to staring slack jawed at the TV and let your superiors get on with whatever it is they want to do. The very last thing you should ever do is question what you are told.
Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hah. As a veteran, yeah, the Russians WERE the "bad guys". I guess a lot of adults today are to young to remember the Cold War.
But, today, no. The Russians are no longer the "bad guys". But, neither are we the "good guys". Today, we're just assholes, and the Chinese stand at a crossroads, where they could be the new "bad guys" or the new "good guys". Russia? Let's wait for their next revolution before we decide what the hell they are.
Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhhhh - you put Pakistan on the same list as India? Odd. India has it's share of inbred tribals, they have their share of corruption, and they have their share of idiots in office. But, Pakistan? They are nothing BUT a bunch of inbred tribals! Power? They know nothing of power, outside of sword rattling.
And, I strongly suspect that the US military knows exactly how to take out each and every one of Pakistan's weapons, in the event that Pakistan finally rolls over, and allows the Taliban to take control. Pakistan simply doesn't have any real power.
Today's Iranian government might stand shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan, but they don't have a prayer of joining ranks with India.