Iran Behind Cyber Attacks On U.S. Banks 306
New submitter who_stole_my_kidneys writes "Evidence suggests the Iranian government is behind cyberattacks this week that have targeted the websites of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. The attacks are described by one source, a former U.S. official, as being 'significant and ongoing,' and looking to cause 'functional and significant damage.' Another source suggested the attacks were in response to U.S. sanctions on Iranian banks."
Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe if we poke fun of Islam a bit more, they'll actually succeed in eliminating the banks for us. Ha-ha, only serious.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because we don't apologize to barbarians who stone women for adultery after being raped. And, yes, even in the cases of legitimate rape.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we don't apologize to them, we subvert their democracy and install our own monsters that kill and enslave them, much more civilized.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think this is, the reenactment of Iwo Jima?
Don't you mean the reenactment of NetBSD's founding [netbsd.org]? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean Iraq? Or did all of Iran vote for the president of the neighboring country?
Re: (Score:3)
"Iranians" includes women, too
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
No seriously, modern Iran is the result of western interference, go read it up [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
So why do you support another dictatorship that is if anything worse then Iran? The Saudis don't exactly give their women any rights either.
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Us vs them" is not by any means a purely Republican thing, as your own comment unintentionally demonstrates.
Re: (Score:2)
"Us vs them" is not by any means a purely Republican thing, as your own comment unintentionally demonstrates.
Doctors regularly quarantine people with contagious diseases. Every time that happens, you have very much the same "us versus them" situation and there's nothing Republican about it.
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Informative)
False. Iraq, and only Iraq, used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88. (And non incidentally, the chemical weapons were supplied by the west, and targetted using western intelligence).
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
especially when they believe their deity tells them that women are not equal to men, and shouldn't vote, or drive, learn to read, or show their face in public. i'm sick of bleeding hearts defending these muslim assholes. i haven't heard many stories of people from other faiths being so mean to their own mothers, sisters, daughters, wives.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop with the lumping, dammit.
http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/hardaga.asp [yadvashem.org]
http://www.chron.com/life/houston-belief/article/Exhibit-honors-Muslims-who-saved-Jews-1610225.php [chron.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, "we", the U.S., didn't do anything
I guess someone has not been studying the history of US-Iranian relations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-contra_affair [wikipedia.org]
It is not as though the Iranians started to consider us to be enemies without us having done anything to them.
So that means hatred forever is ok? (Score:2, Interesting)
You know the US has had some countries it has had a beef with in the past. The UK, Germany, Japan, and so on. You might want to examine their reaction, their relations these days.
There is something to be said for "forgive and forget" rather than holding a grudge until the end of eternity.
For that matter, were the US to apply the same logic they'd have plenty of reason to hold a grudge forever against Iran. The embassy hostage situation would be a good example. A gross violation of international and US law,
Re:So that means hatred forever is ok? (Score:4, Informative)
The UK, Germany, Japan, and so on
In fact, the British attacked the US in 1812, and did not truly become our allies until the 20th century -- generations after the revolution. We helped to establish democratic governments in Germany and Japan.
When it came to Iran, we went with the opposite approach: the elimination of democracy in favor of authoritarian dictatorship. The Iranians did not rebel against their democratic government, they rebelled against a tyrant who had US backing. There is a world of difference between what happened in Iran and what happened in Germany or Japan.
There is something to be said for "forgive and forget" rather than holding a grudge until the end of eternity.
Chances are that the Iranians would have forgotten their anger, if we did not keep angering them. After they overthrew the dictatorship we created (sadly, only to establish another tyranny), we started giving the Iraqis weapons to kill Iranians with. Then in secret, we also gave Iranian weapons to kill Iraqis with, basically escalating a war that resulted in many dead Arabs and Persians. We also have an embargo on Iran, we have sent numerous, sophisticated, and destructive malware packages to them (and have written those to target their computer systems) and we keep calling them our enemy. It is not as though they are still getting back at us for everything that happened 60 years ago; we just won't leave them alone.
For that matter, were the US to apply the same logic they'd have plenty of reason to hold a grudge forever against Iran
Which is basically what we are doing -- as I said, we are not leaving them alone, we are actively working against Iran. We never had a good reason to get involved with Iran in the first place, and we keep worsening the situation.
try to make progress
Let's start be reevaluating our approach to overthrowing governments. We screwed up with Iran and Iraq; let's try not to screw up again going forward (maybe we should be asking about the escalation of US military activity in South America).
Re: (Score:2)
I am just curious. Does it mean it is a-OK to essentially dethrone a government legally chosen by its constituency?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Muslim world needs to examine their own society, and come to a resolution concerning their own behavior.
You mean like U.N. Resolution 16/18, or U.N. Resolution 62/154?
Re: (Score:2)
The Muslim world needs to examine their own society, and come to a resolution concerning their own behavior.
The Islamic philospher Kahlil Gibran in the book "The Prophet" said the same thing in different words, but human nature is human nature and it's much easier to jihad flesh and blood infadels than it is to jihad your internal demons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it Iran's case. It probably didn't help that we overthrew their democratically elected government, stole their oil for decades with a puppet regime, and now are sending in computer malware to blow up their centrifuges and assassinating their nuclear scientists.
Such actions do tend to cause some animosity.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
oh, that was all so long ago... only half of the Iranian's currently living there are old enough to remember those things. Maybe more would be alive if we hadnt propped up their neighbor who was happily killing them with our chemical weapons, but again, that is history now.
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Evil is evil no matter if it is provoked or not, and that applies to ALL sides of ANY moral issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and being surprised at people being mildly annoyed when a foreign nation basically destroys their government structure is not one sided. I just want to make sure I understand your argument: it is ok to subvert democratically chosen government to uphold the profits of a corporation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing you can do with someone who has sworn to kill you & tear up your home other than to stop them.
And yet you want "us" to apologize to them for preventing them from developing nuclear weapons? I'd say that preventing them from having a means of creating nuclear weapons is a pretty nice way of "stop[ping] them", compared to killing them all and tearing up their homes.
Re: (Score:2)
My lame attempt at sarcasm doesn't work and I should stop it.
I don't advocate holocausts. I can, however, see taking out key nuclear facilities. It seems obvious that over the long term, the non-Muslim world stands a great chance of suffering higher costs dealing with the Iranian nukes than taking them out now.
There is never a clean solution when one country says blatantly and openly they will destroy another country or two or three.
Iran, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
...someone who would like to frame Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
... WHO ?!?!?
Re: (Score:2)
... WHO ?!?!?
God of course. and I mean, the Jewish God that guides the actions of that country Israel.
Not really sure what that other god, Allah is up to though, probably something sneaky that involves lots of virgins.
Re: (Score:2)
In the Day of Reckoning he'll call the leaders of the three religions and ask them:
"what the fuck was all that fuss about, shitheads? Did you bother to RTFM?"
Re: (Score:2)
In the Day of Reckoning he'll call the leaders of the three religion
Why exclude Zoroastrians, Sikhs, and Bahais?
Did you bother to RTFM?
Which one of the three? Not to mention all the minor forks...
In truth, however, I suspect that he'll rather say "u mad? cuz I did it all for teh lulz".
Re:Iran, or... (Score:5, Funny)
Surely the Doctor would not stoop so low.
Re: (Score:2)
... WHO ?!?!?
Why would the World Health Organization try to frame Iran for anything? Are they unhappy with Iranian physicians or what?
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Iran is doing more to punish those criminals than our own government is. Thanks Iran.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hahaha, you think "those criminals" are the ones who will pay the cost for this? You are just adorable. I want to pinch your cheeks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "Privatize the profits, socialize the losses." Fabulous business model, if you have the money to buy enough politicians who'll make it into law.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad karma doesn't make what Iran is doing right, but it does rob their victims of the moral high ground if they bitch about it.
False (Score:2)
I wonder how and why (Score:5, Interesting)
The brave cyberwarriors of the theocracy can on one hand fight for the glory of their dogmatic institutions, while using the technology that the infidels invented, that they wouldn't even possess, without assembly in infidel lands.
How is God great when it is the godless who provides the tools used to prove God is great?
Re: (Score:2)
So if we fought a war against China, you'd advocate that we don't use gunpowder based bullets?
Re: (Score:2)
Where the idea came from originally doesn't matter much in the West, we accept ideas from everywhere. Iran purports to not have that same liberality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
oh gawd, not this ignorant shit (Score:2, Interesting)
yes, the usa and the uk did bad things in the cold war. so did the soviet union. in fact, every single goddam country in the world has a black mark on its past from some point in its history
what does that mean? NOTHING. what the usa did in the cold war has zero, ZERO bearing on the beliefs and will and agenda of the actual iranians in charge of the actual country of iran today
are iranians an angry hive of bees? dumb forces of nature? i don't think so. but you think so: according to you, iranians are not rea
Re: (Score:2)
Go back to kuro5hin, moron. The current president of Iran was one of the students who took over the U.S. embassy in the revolution that overthrew the U.S.'s puppet ruler. The current Iranian leadership is in place just because they participated in that revolution. If you can argue with a straight face that their decisions today have "nothing" to do with that, then you're detached from reality. Do you think they're making decisions in a vacuum?
Your mewling attempts to divorce action from motivation and h
i'm not responsible for the words i write (Score:2)
see, i worked at the wtc until 9/11/2001. bin laden bombed the wtc, i lost my job. my entire life is now defined by that event. so, what i just wrote is not my responsibility, it is the responsibility of bin laden and saudi arabia
i'm going to rise up politically and in the year 2040 i am going to violently suppress a revolution in the usa when i am in power. but again, not my fault, saudi arabia's fault, because of 9/11
</sarcasm>
do you see how fucking stupid this ignorant bullshit sounds?
Re: (Score:2)
I see how fucking stupid your ignorant bullshit sounds. I don't see how observing that the current state of the mideast is heavily dominated by its recent colonial history is somehow either dehumanizing or infantilizing to Iranians.
Talking about the chain of events and how earlier events trigger or motivate later events doesn't take away anyone's responsibility. Your bullshit does though: It says that America has no responsibility at all for Iranian hostility, which is both fucking incoherent and leaves
Re: (Score:2)
America! Fuck yeah!
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't know how to express my disgust with what you said. You would absolve history's major actors of any responsibility for the shape of the world, as if they were bystanders. You act like yesterday and today are just accidental neighbours.
I guess in your justice system, the bank robbers do split the sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
hey you know what? i just found out your grandfather murdered someone. report yourself to closest prison to serve your punishment
YES, ASSHOLE: if the perpetators are dead, IT'S OVER
justice for stealing a loaf of bread is punishment. not eternal damnation. that same logic scales to all crimes. otherwise, you're stuck with the balkans in the 1990s, where croats and serbs are murdering each other from stupid shit that happened in the 1500s. this is the world you want? endless victimization and recrimination?
ju
Re: (Score:2)
Your counterexamples make no fucking sense because, as I keep repeating but you're too fucking thick to understand, saying "the US bears some responsibility for the shape of things today" does NOT entail any less responsibility for the Iranians.
You really are that shit-stupid, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
it's all like cosmic dude, it's all connected. like somebody did that and then like this happened over there. whoa
so like, i'm responsible for everything in the world man! heavy!
pass the doobage on the left hand side
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to forgive a war that you've won.
Re: (Score:2)
it's easy to say you are a victim, and blame all failings on some other person, time, or place. and take no responsibility for your own lot in life, even though that's the only way you ever win at anything
Re: (Score:2)
okay. so what does that mean about slavery. what does that mean about our nation's genocidal treatment of native americans?
but really it started before that. italy owes the world an apology for the brutal treatment the romans meted out on their neighbors. no wait, sorry, that's the greeks that owe reparations. no wait, the egyptians are to blame. i think modern iraq needs to apologize for the babylonians. iran too, for the brutal crimes of the sassanids
zzz...
there is sell-by date on all recriminations. just
Re: (Score:2)
my argument is: if it happened in the distant past, don't use it for recrimination and permanent victimization
and no one is innocent
got it?
Re: (Score:2)
anyone in the south still holding ill feelings about the civil war are losers
here's the deal: if the assholes who committed the crimes are still alive, have at them. otherwise, it's history. move on or wallow in victimization
Re: (Score:2)
Surely this does in fact demonstrate that God is great indeed, if He can even guide the infidels to craft the weapons of their own doom, and then provide them just like that to the warriors of jihad - and often even for free! ~
Re: (Score:2)
Who put all of that oil under our sands?
Oil is great! Sorry, I mean, God is great!
We should retaliate! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we can overthrow their government and install a brutal dictator who will torture and murder people with our approval.
Maybe we can pay a neighbouring country to start a war with them. We could give that neighbouring country chemical and biological weapons and then accuse Iran of using them.
We could impose crippling sanctions on them, denying them medicine and illegally seizing their assets where we can, and threatening anyone who trades with them.
We could fund Sunni extremists to blow up cars in crowded markets, hoping to start a wave of terror.
We could start murdering their scientists and academics.
We could launch our own cyber attack on them.
Well, we could do all these things again, as we've done them all at least once. Maybe,if we can't think of anything else, we can ask, exasperated, "Why do they hate us?"
Re: (Score:2)
If they want us to stop setting their stuff on fire, they need to align their interests with ours. Until then, we'll keep inching that armada we've got off their coast ever closer until either they take a shot at us or somebody sneezes and then the war starts.
Re: (Score:3)
If they want us to stop setting their stuff on fire, they need to align their interests with ours.
How does the antelope align its interests with the lion's? Becoming suddenly suicidal?
Re: (Score:2)
They are people.
Just not the citizens.
A nation's word is expressed by whoever is in charge, to wit, the government.
When a kingdom speaks, it is with the voice of the king, not the voice of the people. The only way the people get any say is if the king says they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We could give that neighbouring country chemical and biological weapons
citation needed
We could start murdering their scientists
That was Israel, not the US, it's unlikely the US would have approved if Israel had bothered to ask us.
I'm not saying the US has been real friendly towards Iran, we've kind of been dicks to them over the last 60 years or so, but let's keep facts straight.
Re:We should retaliate! (Score:5, Informative)
How about the Senate report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq [gulfwarvets.com], amongst whose findings is "The United States provided the Government of Iraq with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile- system programs, including:(6) chemical warfare agent precursors; chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans); chemical warhead filling equipment; biological warfare related materials; missile fabrication equipment; and, missile-system guidance equipment"
Is that fact straight enough for you?/P
Re: (Score:3)
Tit for tat cyberware (Score:5, Insightful)
$40B Per Month Tells Me They Will Be Ok.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Err, the $40B is the Fed buying T-bills, the only way that's helping the big banks is by causing the yield on those instruments to fall thus making other investments (like perhaps bonds issues through big banks) more attractive.
Re:$40B Per Month Tells Me They Will Be Ok.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I had missed that, thanks. Well then QE3 really is a bailout for the big banks =(
Re: (Score:2)
The are buying agency issued MBS. That means they are buying from Federal Government, not the banks.
propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is the second or third accusation from the US to Iran about something or the other this week.
This pastern of preparing people for another war again is getting a bit obvious by now,
Re:propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We need a "World" court (Score:5, Insightful)
"We need to have a world court, staffed with judges representing all countries."
We have had that for years. The US wants no part of it, because lots of war criminals are US citizens.
Re:We need a "World" court (Score:5, Insightful)
The US probably could not legally be a part of such "World Court" without violating the US Constitution. Certainly the only way it would ever remotely be constitutional is if it were a ratified treaty, approved by the legislature and signed by the executive branch. There is little chance of that happening, and probably for good reason. There is no reason that a government shouldn't be able to enter into negotiations to resolve disputes with other countries, and certainly other countries should be free to sanction any country they choose, but to have some third party enter two entire nations into binding and un-appealable agreements does not sound very smart. How can you say that any of the judges are unbiased or fair? Because I know no man or woman who is unbiased, and most are not fair.
And what force ensures that people hold up their end of the judgement? The UN? The UN wasn't set up in a way that instills faith in its abilities to end disputes, or to enforce judgements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a nice start even if said court didn't have any means to enforce the judgement, and they would not be binding on the countries. Even the mere existence of such a judgement can be a powerful propaganda piece in and of itself. Russian dissidents have been using ECHR that way for years with considerable success - Russia could technically withdraw from it and just ignore the judgments, but it would lose prestige by doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta Love the Hyperbole! (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh... it's not really 'aggression' when it's in response to a previous, unprovoked attack, is it? I think the phrase you're looking for is "the best defense is a good offense."
So... US/Isreal invades Iranian territory, hacks their computers causing millions in physical damage to equipment, murders Iranian nationals within their own borders with drive-by bombings, sanctions, constant threats and saber-rattling... but Iran and their allies are the terrorists for allegedly perpetrating a DDoS attack on a couple outward-facing bank websites?
Yea, I think most bullies would, at some point, realize that at least one of the people they've fucked with will eventually retaliate.
Good. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When it stops being a valid complaint, we'll be glad to give it up.
The Iranian government cultivated a botnet? (Score:2)
It's a couple of Too Big To Fail banks. They aren't the most popular organizations just now. Is it a massive high-bandwidth DDOS? Or some Anonymous-esque probe? It may be Iran, I don't know, but lacking evidence, Iran wouldn't be my first choice of perpetrator for something like this.
Anonymous (Score:2)
should be recruiting Iranians...
Re:Just disconnect them. (Score:5, Funny)
Irantranet
Re:This is a red herring... (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran represents monetary ideas that show that modern societies can work without interest based banking.
Ha ha ha ha ha! You think their banks work without interest? Semantic horseshit. The Islamic religious fanatics in charge are STEEPED in semantic horseshit.
Islamic "non-interest" banks simply calculate what the interest would be, then adds it on to the loan as a fee. You pay the same amount, but it is added in as a lump sum fee. Instead of a $100,000 loan w/5% interest on a $100,000 house, they buy the house for $100,00 then resell it to you for $200,000 on term. That isn't sinful interest, it is a blessed fee. Bankers are still bankers. TANSTAAFL.
Oh, and wagering on horse races is illegal because gambling is a sin. Except in Iran. When you place a bet on the ponies at the track, you're given a minuscule percentage of ownership of the horse for the duration of the race. Because betting on a horse you OWN isn't a sin. Only betting on OTHER animals is. Semantics.
Guess how they handle the "sin" of prostitution? You know how Islam allows you to have up to 3 wives? Well, if you only have 1 or 2 you can pop into the brothel and have the cleric "marry" you to one of the girls for the duration -- a few minutes to a couple of hours. This way she isn't a prostitute but your wife, and thus it isn't a sin. Instant divorce when you're done. They make Las Vegas look like pikers.
So feel free to go on and on about how Islamic banks have the answer to "fractional reserve banking" and the evils of usury but when you're done, look at it again and you'll see it is the same old pig just with a different wig.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)