US, Israel Behind Flame Malware 382
The Washington Post is reporting that the sophisticated 'Flame' malware was created by the United States and Israel in order to collect intelligence on Iranian computer networks. The intel was to be used in a cyber-sabotage campaign intended to slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons. This follows confirmation a few weeks ago that the U.S. and Israel were behind Stuxnet, which caused problems at Iran's nuclear facilities. From the article:
"The emerging details about Flame provide new clues to what is thought to be the first sustained campaign of cyber-sabotage against an adversary of the United States. 'This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,' said one former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, who added that Flame and Stuxnet were elements of a broader assault that continues today. 'Cyber-collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this.' ... The scale of the espionage and sabotage effort 'is proportionate to the problem that's trying to be resolved,' the former intelligence official said, referring to the Iranian nuclear program. Although Stuxnet and Flame infections can be countered, 'it doesn't mean that other tools aren't in play or performing effectively,' he said."
Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean seriously? Who else besides the Israelis a) hate Iran and b) have the technical chops to do it?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:4, Informative)
How about doing some research or at least keeping up with the news before spewing? One of the two US attorneys on the leak case is Rod J. Rosenstein, a Republican appointed into his current position as US Attorney in 2005 by George W. Bush -- hardly the profile of an Obama partisan.
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:4, Informative)
Good thing Eric Holder is appointing two Obama partisans to investigate the leaks.
What exactly is an "Obama Partisan?"
Perhaps Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Army Secretary John McHugh, and Ambassador Jon Huntsman? All of these people are Republicans, conservatives, or people who served in Republican administrations. Finally as another poster here pointed out one of the two investigators appointed is a, gasp!, Republican! If you're drinking the Fox coolaid you may believe that the current administration is partisan, but it flies in the face of the facts. This President reaches across the aisle repeatedly looking for compromise only to have his open hand slapped. If you're looking for partisanship you'll have to look elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit, the original leak on the Stux/Flame bit was from a BOOK coming out before the elections, which the NYT then published an excerpt from along with additional details.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean seriously? Who else besides the Israelis a) hate Iran and b) have the technical chops to do it?
Believe it or not, we're not the most technologically sophisticated country. China has more honor students than we have students. Most of Europe has a more developed telecommunications infrastructure than we do; internet, mobile phones, cable tv, you name it. We are not number 1.
As to who else hates Iran and has the capability to do something about it... it should be pointed out we don't hate Iran. We hate any country who tries to acquire nuclear weapons. Something the size of a suitcase can destroy a major city... it's why we worked so damn hard with the Russians to disarm as many of them as we could. Not every country will play nice: Some of them will do whatever it takes to beat their enemies, even if that means killing themselves in the process. Unfortunately, all the countries currently working on making nuclear weapons fall into that category, including Iran.
The only reason we're fucking around with 'cyber' warfare instead of curb stomping them is it's an election year and our economy is in ruins thanks to fighting two unnecessary wars based on our President deciding to finish what his daddy started rather than leave well enough alone, and our country having a momentary fit of stupidity where we had to kill everyone and everything wearing a funny hat because a couple of our sand castles got kicked over by a bully.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they don't. Most Chinese live in poverty, only dreaming of the luxury of higher education.
Oh, and the reason you're not curb stomping Iran is because you can't. It took 10 years to make Iraq into something manageable, with Iraq being a far less prepared and formidable enemy than Iran.
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they don't. Most Chinese live in poverty, only dreaming of the luxury of higher education.
Most Chinese live in big cities (more than a million inhabitants) and have access to government scholarships if they score well on the university entrance examination (gaokao).
The scholarships are a pittance, and many students have to work part-time to get through university, but their universities are loaded with brilliant people.
China is a developing country and many people do live in poverty, but there are likely more kids with (real!) Gucci bags in Chinese cities than in the US. You have no idea how fast the place is developing.
Re: (Score:3)
We hate any country who tries to acquire nuclear weapons.
Except India, Pakistan, and of course Israel.
The only reason we're fucking around with 'cyber' warfare instead of curb stomping them is it's an election year and our economy is in ruins
Wait, so you mean we couldn't have "curb stomped" them before?
thanks to fighting two unnecessary wars
Is going to war to stop Iran from acquiring nukes "necessary"?
our country having a momentary fit of stupidity where we had to kill everyone and everything wearing a funny hat because a couple of our sand castles got kicked over by a bully.
No hyperbole here, no sir. Yep, we killed everybody wearing a funny hat, and those skyscrapers in New York City were just sandcastles instead of economic centers of activity.
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't agree with it, and it sure makes America look like a hypocritical dick, but yeah it's not really terrorism. You could argue what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan by America is terrorism, which to be honest is the only way to win there, you can't occupy it for ever and if you can't scare every one into submission the problem will return when you leave, because you won't of fixed any underlying issues, and may of even made them worse. But i don't see the same terror that happened on 911 or with the civilian deathroll in the middle east happening in Iran research centres, at least not due to cyber terrorism (I’m well aware of the Israeli assassins taking out Iran scientists).
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:4, Informative)
You mis-spelled "centers".
P.S. Please mod this funny
P.P.S. Please do NOT mod this Informative... You'll look stupid.
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sabotage: yes. Cyber terrorism? No. Warfare, yes, but not terrorism.
To be fair, terrorism is rather broadly any act that incites fear, specifically for political purposes. I don't know about you, but Stuxnet and Flame scare the hell out of me.
And I don't even begin to represent their targets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can kinda see both arguments, but "We're spying on your obviously high profile nuclear program" and "our virus broke some of your enrichment hardware", probably just don't have the same shock and terror as "someone just randomly blew up a bus with your family in it". If you find yourself going to the dictionary to figure out if something is terrorism, you're trying too hard.
Though when the Israelis sent people to execute Iranian nuclear scientists and such... that might well qualify in a more traditional
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, Israel itself has described cyberattacks as terrorism.
So that implies Stuxnet was "state-sponsored terrorism [wikimedia.org]". In which case, the US should add itself to that list [wikimedia.org] it keeps...
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to claim that the primary *intent* was to incite fear when it was created to be so stealthy it may have been running for years without anyone even noticing...
To quote a well-respected Dr. on the subject... "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?"
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which scares you more, Stuxnet and Flame, which at the very least appear to have been fairly specifically targeted, or Iran with nuclear weapons?
In another way, at least Stuxnet and Flame have come to light, show us what's possible, and start us thinking about how to counter. Imagine a world where such capabilities had been kept in the dark until used on a public infrastructure attack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Which scares you more, Stuxnet and Flame, which at the very least appear to have been fairly specifically targeted, or Iran with nuclear weapons?
A loaded question. I'm either with you or with the terrorists? I fear the US more than any other country, but I think the US fears any other country more than I do the US.
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which scares you more, Stuxnet and Flame, which at the very least appear to have been fairly specifically targeted, or Iran with nuclear weapons?
That's so easy, it's unfair: Stuxnet and Flame, of course. They already have caused considerable damage on a wide scale, and while they are targeted, it would be way too easy to re-target them on something that matters to me.
Iran with nukes, on the other hand, is still theoretical, still has a long way to go, and even if they had nukes the chances are 99:1 that they would use them for MAD and not actually use them and even if the extremely remote chance of a nuclear detonation came to pass, it would almost certainly not affect me in the slightest.
And, quite frankly, I don't buy nuclear fearmongering coming from the only country ever to actually drop nuclear bombs on civilian cities, twice.
Re: (Score:3)
Iran with nukes, on the other hand, is still theoretical, still has a long way to go, and even if they had nukes the chances are 99:1 that they would use them for MAD and not actually use them and even if the extremely remote chance of a nuclear detonation came to pass, it would almost certainly not affect me in the slightest.
I'm not really sure which would scare me more, an already nuclear weapons capable Israel or the possibility of a nuclear weapons capable Iran (if it isn't there already). The Israelis call Ahmadinejad irrational and judging from some of his public utterances that seems to be true. However, I'm not all that impressed either with the rationality of some of the ultra right wing nutters that we have seen manning Israeli governments over the last couple of decades. Thankfully cooler heads have prevailed until no
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:5, Insightful)
> the only country ever to actually drop nuclear bombs on civilian cities, twice.
True, and the US has used nuclear blackmail more than any other country, regrettably.
But there is another perspective on having used the nuclear bomb in war - historical necessity. There are many who say that a "demonstration event" would have sufficed, that the nuclear bomb need never have been used in war. Unfortunately I don't believe that. I don't believe that there would ever be sufficient fear of the nuclear bomb until it had actually been used to demolish a real city and kill real people. Also unfortunately, there was a very narrow window when that could be done "safely" - without the threat of a full-fledged nuclear exchange. That was the few years when the US had the Bomb and the USSR didn't.
Plus if you ever studied the period, you'll see that many feel that using the bomb saved at least a million lives on both sides - the cost of a protracted air/sea/land war in the Pacific. Even the Hiroshima bomb didn't convince Japan to surrender - they felt that there could only ever be one bomb like that. After Nagasaki, the surrendered because they thought that we could just keep dropping bomb after bomb like that - the first one wasn't unique. What they didn't realize was that at the time we'd made 3 bombs, Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki - that we'd shot our wad. I don't know how far in time we were from a fourth, and I don't know how Japan would have acted had they known we couldn't do it a third time, even.
Re: (Score:3)
From my reading of Wikipedia the USA could have likely produced a couple implosion style nuclear devices a month in short order. The implosion design only needed 6.2 kg of plutonium while the little boy design required more than 60 kg of enriched uranium. While plutonium was being produced more slowly the fact you needed one tenth as much material more than made up for it.
The main holdup on using implosion devices was that they required using explosive lenses, which were a bleeding edge field at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the term you are looking for it "espionage". I'd hardly call it sabotage when the point was to collect information without being detected and after being discovered it was programmed to remove itself without a trace.
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be assuming that Obama is actually behind this. The three letter agencies that make up the U.S. government don't ask for the President's approval every time they want to tie their shoes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, sure. And every president since Roosevelt, as he was the last one who actually asked Congress before going to war.
Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (Score:4, Informative)
War tends to be when you are hitting military and/or government targets.
Terrorism tends to be when you are hitting civilian targets.
Destroying equipment used to make nuclear weapons is cyberwarfare. DDoSing the vatican is cyberterrorism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When we do it to you (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do it to us, it will be considered an act of war.
Re:When we do it to you (Score:5, Insightful)
You're referring to a previous story that you misinterpreted to mean that the US would consider cyberattacks to be an act of war. What that story actually said was that cyberattacks against certain key infrastructure might be considered an act of war if it were serious enough. Quoting:
If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a "use of force" consideration, which could merit retaliation.
That basically says that they won't rule out military force in certain extreme cases. Nor should they.
And for Iran's part, if they'd like to consider Stuxnet to be an act of war, they can. Heck, they could consider Obama forgetting to say "bless you" after Ahmadinejad sneezes to be an act of war. That's the fun thing about the word "consider". But they won't, just as they didn't consider Israel's assassination of their nuclear scientists to be one.
I'm sorry that international espionage isn't as cut and dry as you'd like it to be, but that's just how it is and has been for most of history. There were pretenses of chivalry in Europe (and likely other places) for a time, back when royalty was a good ole boys' club and the peasants would be the ones dying. We're past that now, and I for one am glad of it.
Re:When we do it to you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If a virus set back some research at Raytheon, do you really think that the US would jump into another war?
They made it very clear that they were talking about the sort of attack that thus far only exists in movies, not just some computer worm that damages some equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my thought exactly.
So if the United States sabotages Iranian efforts to develop nuclear power, and they have an energy shortfall which results in 100 preventable deaths of Iranian civilians who were on life support, this is just as bad as if the Iranian cyber-warfare division deliberately cut the power to a US hospital and 100 American civilians on life support died?
Yes, I'm sure they would be seen in exactly the same light by the U.S. administration and public.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So if the United States sabotages Iranian efforts to develop nuclear power, and they have an energy shortfall which results in 100 preventable deaths of Iranian civilians who were on life support, this is just as bad as if the Iranian cyber-warfare division deliberately cut the power to a US hospital and 100 American civilians on life support died?
We and other countries have bent over backwards to offer Iran access to nuclear energy. If that's all they wanted they could have had it a decade ago, for cheap. No, they wanted to enrich uranium to make a nuclear weapon. When we blew up those centrifuges, we did it using computers AND NOBODY GOT BOMBED.
And before you get your jimmies rustled about those poor people in that energy starved hospital, may I remind you that Iran is one of the world's biggest oil producers. I think it might just be barely po
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Iran is trying its best to be recognized by the international community as a modern Islamic democracy,
Oh for fuck's sake, give it a rest. There should be a -1 "Naive" mod for this.
I'm no apologist for the US government, they can do and continue to do terrible things, but to pretend that things in Iran are better for the average citizen than they are for the average US citizen is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Iran isn't good, they have a terr
Re:When we do it to you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're referring to a previous story that you misinterpreted to mean that the US would consider cyberattacks to be an act of war. What that story actually said was that cyberattacks against certain key infrastructure might be considered an act of war if it were serious enough.
I didn't misinterpret anything. It is you who are playing with semantics.
Stuxnet was an attack on industrial control systems used in Iranian nuclear power plants.
Are you implying that US nuclear power plants are not considered key infrastructure? And that a cyberattack bringing down that infrastructure would not be considered an act of war?
I'm sorry that international espionage isn't as cut and dry as you'd like it to be, but that's just how it is and has been for most of history. There were pretenses of chivalry in Europe (and likely other places) for a time, back when royalty was a good ole boys' club and the peasants would be the ones dying. We're past that now, and I for one am glad of it.
I don't know what the Iranians have done to you that makes you happy that the US and Israeli government is dangerously meddling with Nuclear power plants and risking
Re:When we do it to you (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on, you know full well that Stuxnet was targeting the centrifuges. Screwing with centrifuges is not going to take their power grid offline, and it's certainly not "risking the lives of Iranian citizens". You're either being dishonest, or you are woefully ignorant of how nuclear power works.
As for your support, I couldn't care less about it, and I've certainly never said anything even remotely like "they hate our freedoms".
Re:When we do it to you (Score:4, Insightful)
Well since you asked...
I have a strong dislike for irrationality, fear-mongering, and lies. I see a lot of all three whenever the topic of the United States comes up on Slashdot. The US certainly has its flaws. Lots of them in fact. But if you believe Slashdot, you'd think the US is some sort of comic book dystopia. So yeah, I push back against that sort of paranoid fear-mongering. I know I'll never get through to the true believers -- just as I'll never convince truthers that Bush didn't plan 9/11 along with Rockefeller and the queen of England -- but hopefully I can stop some forum lurkers from being lured down that path of irrationality and lies.
As for Iran, I don't consider them to be a threat to the US. But if they obtain nukes, it will cement the leadership in power, as it did in North Korea. We all saw the beatings, rapes, and murders that the Iranian government employed against its people when they protested Ahmadinejad's reelection. Do you really think it would be a good thing for that regime to have even more power? I would never support a war in Iran, because that would kill innocent people. I don't even support Israel's assassination of nuclear scientists. But by the same token, I do support actions that prevent the current regime from obtaining nukes, because I think that Iran having nukes would also cause more death. Not through nuclear attacks, mind you, but by perpetuating a regime with a horrid record of human rights abuses. Delaying or preventing that possibility, without bloodshed, is a Good Thing.
Re:When we do it to you (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what the Iranians have done to you that makes you happy that the US and Israeli government is dangerously meddling with Nuclear power plants and risking the lives of Iranian citizens
Stuxnet only attacked specific hardware configurations known to exist in Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.
Stuxnet infected other computers, but did nothing malicious to them.
There was no risk to nuclear power plants or Iran's civilian population.
but the Iranians haven't done anything to me, and so I'd prefer to take an approach of innocent until proven guilty before instigating a war against them.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction created so that our system of justice can be fair.
It does not mean you are innocent and outside the legal system no one has to abide by that standard.
That said, allowing Iran to go nuclear would lead to nuclear proliferation amongst its neighbors.
At the same time, directly attacking Iran would cause them to lash out, in all directions, at once.
It's a lose-lose situation that Stuxnet turned into a moderate win.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is the hypocrisy, as in when the US promptly killed more civilians by bombing Afghanistan just after 9/11 than had died on 9/11 and few Americans seemed to notice -- as in Israel condemning Iran's nuclear program when they themselves developed nuclear weapons in the 60s while literally lying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause
Like, say, causing a bunch of centrifuges to self-destruct? I mean, if that is not the sort of disruption that a well-placed bomb would cause, I am not really sure what is...
Re:When we do it to you (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If a normal person does the same, it's gonna be prison time. Gotta love how the governments are accountable to the same laws.
Re:When we do it to you (Score:5, Insightful)
And if a normal person builds an aircraft carrier and conducts military exercises in national waters, they'd also go to prison. What is your point? If a government isn't allowed to do things that individual citizens can't, then it's not a government. It's a social club.
Re:When we do it to you (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. law on computer intrusions specifically exempts law enforcement and intelligence agencies:
"(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States."
This is the price we pay for electing people who are willing to criminalize nearly every action of ordinary citizens, and almost no action by government officials, even when they engage in actions that most people would consider criminal.
For example:
- torturing people
- computer hacking
- spying on people without a warrant
- snatching people for rendition in violation of the laws and sovereignty of the countries where they are snatched
- holding people, sometimes the wrong people, in indefinite detention without a hearing
- assassinating people including U.S. citizens without a trial
- using drones to assassinate people, often innocent civilians, in countries where no state of war exists while violating the sovereignty of nations we are not at war with
This list goes on for a long time so I'll stop now.
Re:When we do it to you (Score:5, Interesting)
Ugh, overrated nonsense.
There are stories every other day about Chinese and Russian efforts to compromise U.S. military networks, agencies and schools. When was the last time the U.S. declared war over foreign attempts at espionage?
Beating the War Drums (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Beating the War Drums (Score:4, Insightful)
Last November people said: I'm voting for Obama because he's anti-war and wants to see peace!
2009 Peace Prize: goes to Obama
for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples
2010: Let's bomb Pakistan with even more drones!
2011: Let's bomb Libya!
2012: Let's use "cyber-terrorism" against Iran!
Re:Beating the War Drums (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot the kill list.
Re:Beating the War Drums (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Beating the War Drums (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, last time I checked, Bush wasn't running in 2008.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason is because Obama defers to the UN, or at least NATO on decisions like Libya. To people who prefer that style, then Obama is a good leader. He hasn't invaded Syria, for example, where other presidents might have.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way to ensure peace is to remain neutral.
I'm not so sure. In human history, long periods of peace occurred when a power was able to dominate its surroundings and achieve a sizable hegemony. The Roman Empire, the many Chinese empires, the British Empire, all encompassed periods of relative peace and cultural advancement. They snuff out the upstarts before anyone could grow powerful enough to start a prolonged war that might have cost 10 or 100 times the number of deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this before or after we attack China? Never under-estimate the evil a politician will commit to be elected / remain in power.
Aren't you forgetting that Flame is old? (Score:2)
Flame would appear to have been active for years. Don't think Obama had much say in its creation/deployment.
Leaking details to the Press could be his work - I'm sure anything that gets out will put him in a good light.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of dipshit would consider this terrorism?
Oh, probably the kind that fails to see how espionage can often prevent wars.
Re: (Score:3)
Last November people said: I'm voting for Obama because he's anti-war and wants to see peace!
A key insight: when Americans say they are anti-war, they mean they don't want to see American soldiers coming home in body bags.
Regarding deaths of anonymous foreigners, the bar is set quite a bit lower. The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush sent thousands of US soldiers overseas, and Obama (so far) has not.
Selective memory (Score:3)
The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush sent thousands of US soldiers overseas, and Obama (so far) has not.
Afghanistan surge?
Oh.
Re:Beating the War Drums (Score:5, Insightful)
So will you come back and admit to being wrong when you inevitably are?
Israel has been trying to get Obama to go to war alongside them for quite some time now. He's refused. Maybe because we can't afford it, maybe because he doesn't think its necessary, maybe because his base would desert him, maybe because he just thinks that wars of aggression are bad. But declaring war right before an election? Absolute political suicide. His base would desert him, his opponents would mock him for his transparent ploy, and independents would look at the bill from Iraq and blanch.
Now, if Romney wins, we might be in Iran by November of 2013... maybe. But I think Syria is the more likely candidate. He already wants to arm the rebels, and his party wants to go further than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because we can't afford it, maybe because he doesn't think its necessary, maybe because his base would desert him, maybe because he just thinks that wars of aggression are bad.
None of the above.
Report after report has been written explaining, in great detail, the stupidity of attacking Iran.
Iran is kind of like Cold War Russia: it has lots of proxies that can act independantly.
Attacking Iran would spark a regional war against US allies and assets that would be nearly impossible to stop with military force.
Even the Mossad's former chief thinks attacking Iran is a bad idea [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=attacking+iran+bad+idea [google.com]
Almost all the people saying "attacking Iran is a good id
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, Obama the man of peace. You know the one that decided to start another war in Libya...
He is the Peace Prize President.
Re:Beating the War Drums (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
War is hell and all that but sometimes a decision to go to was is the right decision. Like we were right to go to war with Germany for example, or like G.W. Bush was right to go to war with Iraq.
Re: (Score:3)
How do I justify it? Iraqis are better off, Iraq's neighbors are better off, and we are better off as a result of the war.
Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
[Flame] was directed by Israel in a unilateral operation that apparently caught its American partners off guard, according to several U.S. and Western officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Generally these kind of leaks, especially when they happen as much as they have lately, happen at the direction of officials. It's not an accident. The question is why are all these anonymous leaks being passed to the press? Is it because they want Iran to think we have greater capability than we actually do? Some people have speculated that this is an attempt to give Obama an election boost, but one leak is enough to do that, he doesn't need to keep leaking....So what is the purpose?
Re: (Score:2)
"So what is the purpose?"
Its probably not the primary purpose but it is a pretty effective way to flaunt that you are above the law, all laws including the constitution and to flaunt that you have power.
In reading the U.S. Criminal Code on computer intrusions Section 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers [iwar.org.uk] it is interesting to note that Congress went out of their way to exempt various 3 letter Federal agencies from laws against hacking computers while everyone else goes to Federal pris
Re: (Score:3)
So what is the purpose?
The simplest explanation is that it's dick waving.
Which, when all comes to all, just shows us that you're dicks.
An alternative explanation is that it's an attempt to bully AV companies into silence, and reduce further investigation and looking for more malware of the same type.
Either way, I think the TLAs and Israel misunderestimate the animosity this causes among normal people who could very well be hit by this warfare. A backlash may be coming, including official protests from other countries, and perhap
Re: (Score:3)
Er.
DHS, not DHL. Although these days you never know!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You think an ordinary blackhat could hack Siemen's equipment?
Your question makes no sense.
I think there are several extraordinary blackhats. For every one that the government has recruited, there are likely ten more which they haven't.
And they don't even have as narrow a target as Siemens - they can target any critical system used by the US or Israel.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on. All of this could very well be attempts at misdirection. The leaks come out just as talks are starting to fail, so it could also just be an attempt to ratchet up the pressure and force them back to the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Rabbit holes are often very, very deep.
Nah, rabbit warrens are usually 9 feet at most. Not too deep. They aren't well diggers or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, rabbit warrens are usually 9 feet at most. Not too deep. They aren't well diggers or anything.
Yes, but the world is full of Alices, and we are very small.
Double standards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it seem like the past 15 years of politics have been "Wag the Dog" repeated over and over again?
Re: (Score:3)
Costly for some, very profitable for others, in fact that others really need more wars, interventions and forced putting them in control of oily resources and related management. Lot of people will die, billons will be wasted on weapons, and the country image will degrade even more, but some people at government and military (and some special civilians) will become even richer, and thats what really matters. You can assessinate, rob and rape entire countries in plain view if you are strong enough.
Don't wor
So we're waging a prolonged attack against them (Score:2)
Other Disruptive Measures (Score:5, Funny)
what should happen next (Score:4, Interesting)
Can 'o' worms (Score:3)
Well, it's official.
It's now a free-for-all on the Internet for nations to go head-to-head with malware and cyber-espionage. Just like Ike let the Soviets launch their Sputnik to clear the air (heh) about whether territorial rights extend into space (they don't), now the US and Israel have justified it for everyone else to do their own Flame and Stuxnet cyber-espionage.
Since the US is supposedly the leader of the free world, we can either lead by good example or bad. Setting a bad example gets us exactly what we deserve.
Cuing up "What Goes Around, Comes Around" by Chuck Greenberg and Shadowfax.
--
BMO
Also (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE [youtube.com]
would be more fitting imho.
I am shocked (Score:3)
Utterly flabberghasted.
Who could have guessed this? Noone, that's who.
How lovely (Score:3)
Isn't it just nice when our allies decide to send this kind of shit out on the network where it risks going on to wreak havoc indiscriminately? And for what - to satisfy cravings of a bunch of paranoid Mossad and CIA officers?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear weapons are terrible and I don't trust -any- government to refrain from the use of them, either as threats to bully others or actually using them as terrorist weapons like the US did in Japan.
Really, I'm no more worried that Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons than I am that the US, France and India have nuclear weapons.
Re:Are you worried about a nuclear Iran? (Score:4, Interesting)
Worried about a nuclear Iran? Yes. Worried about a nuclear US, China, Russia, India, UK, France, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel? Yes.
See this is the logical breakdown that some people have. MAD. Some government actually do care, no matter how destructive the soviets were to their own people. They actually did have some understanding of their actions to the world as a whole. Knowing there would be nothing left of the world if they nuked the US. The US knew the same. India and Pakistan are at a similar point. Though as Pakistan slips further towards the militant islamist side it become less so. North Korea wants a bomb to threaten anyone, and will use it against the south, simply to use it. Israel has it to protect itself from arab states that have repeatedly tried to annihilate it(another form of MAD).
Trust is a tricky thing. What you should be asking is, what do they care about if they have it and what do they care about if they use it, and expect to gain from it.
Re: (Score:3)
North Korea wants a bomb to threaten anyone, and will use it against the south, simply to use it.
Possibly, but unlikely, as at that point even China wouldn't protect them anymore and they'd be pulverized into the ground. Their main deterrent right now is that they could cause massive civilian damage to S. Korea in a war, which is why they can provoke the South any time they want attention without actually starting a war. Use a nuke and that deterrent is gone.
Re: (Score:3)
So I am curious to know on a scale from 1 - 10 (1 being no threat and a 10 being we should be shitting ourselves) how members of this community view the threat of a nuclear armed Iran.
2, maybe 3 if I were feeling pessimistic. Iran is not at war, and the only countries I could conceive of Iran trying to attack are in possession of plenty of reliable, well-designed nuclear weapons. Iran is not run by complete idiots, they know there is no way they could win a nuclear war with Israel or the US.
Iran wants nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip, a way to assert itself during negotiations by hanging the threat of a nuclear attack over everyone's heads. Iran knows that the US and Israel h
Re: (Score:2)
Countries have no friends, only temporary positive relations.
Re: (Score:2)
Its still a troll, as odds are you know damn well that the definition is bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that'll serve the cause of democracy. Shoot the people who are revealing to the populace all the immoral things you're doing. While it quite possibly would serve the careers of a number of politicians, I think your suggestion is more treasonous to the people of your nation than the leaker.
Re: (Score:3)