Iran Says Siemens Helped US, Israel Build Stuxnet 300
CWmike writes "Iran's Brigadier General, Gholam Reza Jalali, accused Siemens on Saturday with helping US and Israeli teams craft the Stuxnet worm that attacked his country's nuclear facilities. 'Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemies with the information about the codes of the SCADA software and prepared the ground for a cyber attack against us,' Jalali told the Islamic Republic News Service. Siemens did not reply to a request for comment on Jalali's accusations. Stuxnet, which first came to light in June 2010 but hit Iranian targets in several waves starting the year before, has been extensively analyzed by security researchers. Symantec and Langner Communications say Stuxnet was designed to infiltrate Iran's nuclear enrichment program, hide in the Iranian SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) control systems that operate its plants, then force gas centrifuge motors to spin at unsafe speeds. Jalali suggested that Iranian officials would pursue Siemens in the courts, and claimed that Iranian researchers traced the attack to Israel and the US. He said information from infected systems was sent to computers in Texas."
Whose enemies? (Score:3, Insightful)
FTA: "Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemies with the information about the codes of the SCADA software and prepared the ground for a cyber attack against us,"
Define 'enemies', please. From the rest of the world's POV, Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: "Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemies with the information about the codes of the SCADA software and prepared the ground for a cyber attack against us,"
Define 'enemies', please. From the rest of the world's POV, Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.
Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:5, Informative)
Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.
Not according to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.
Not according to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed.
Like the US hasn't ignored treaties they have signed....
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0607-01.htm [commondreams.org]
The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply
In addition, the report advised that torture or homicide could be justified as "self-defense," should an official "honestly believe" it was necessary to head off an imminent attack on the U.S. The self-defense doctrine generally has been asserted by individuals fending off assaults, and in 1890, the Supreme Court upheld a U.S. deputy marshal's right to shoot an assailant of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field as involving both self-defense and defense of the nation. Citing Justice Department opinions, the report concluded that "if a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition," he could be justified "in doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network."
For members of the military, the report suggested that officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." Examining the "superior orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, the Vietnam War prosecution of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre and the current U.N. war-crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the report concluded it could be asserted by "U.S. armed forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) established the US, USSR (Russian Federation replaced the USSR in the treaty), UK, France, and China as five "Nuclear-Weapon States". Non-Nuclear Weapon states were prohibited from, among other things, possessing, manufacturing, or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All 187 signatories were committed to the goal of eventual nuclear disarmament.
So the US isn't obligated to give up nuclear weapons right away, but the US is disarming.
SALT I&II
INF Treaty
START I reduced nuclear inventories by 40% - 6,000 warheads for US
New START will reduce the US arsenal to around 1550 warheads
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Israel didn't sign the NNPT, nor did India, Pakistan, or the DPRK, unlike India , the DPRK and Pakistan, Israel never tested a nuclear weapon, hasn't threatened anyone with one.
Iran signed and ratified the NNPT, so it's supposed to follow the rules.
So bringing Israel into a discussion about NNPT does what exactly?
I see, and the facts show that the US, Russian Federation, UK, France are all decreasing their nuclear stockpiles over time, China really isn't increasing theirs while a number of former Soviet sta
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:5, Insightful)
The NPT calls for disarmenent, not a reduction in stockpiles - which is sort of the point- the treaty is worthless, other than as a beating stick for large powers over smaller nation states.
Re: (Score:3)
Israel has never publically confirmed a nuclear test - but the Vela Incident has always assumed to be a combined South Africa/Israel test.
That's inaccurate. The Vela incident(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident [wikipedia.org] for those too lazy to go over to Wikipedia) was pair of flashes of light detected in 1979 in the Indian Ocean that was consistent with a nuclear test. But, and this is a big but, no other aspects of a nuclear test were present. No radioactive material was found, no characteristic seismic events occurred, and the flashes were only seen by a single satellite. It could have easily been a malfunction or a meteorite or a series of l
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear weapons are not the reason why the DPRK and Iran want their own, conventional weapons are. In the past decade the US/UK and their allies have invaded two countries, and realistically neither the DPRK or Iran could resist with their conventional military. From their point of view the US manufactured intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and used it to get the UN to agree to their actions, so the same thing could happen to them.
The only thing which can protect them is the threat of nuclear re
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe the original goal was ever to disarm anyone. IT was to stop Nuclear weapons from becoming the next Sherman Tank in warfare.
And I do not think that Israel having Nuclear weapons is a problem because Israel will end up just as poluted and devistated shall they ever use them. It's basically a last resort burn everything measure and Israel never signed the treaty. Iran on the other hand has and benefited from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who is always the aggressor in the Middle East?
Uh, the sons of Adam?
Re: (Score:2)
The US is actively dismantling nuclear weapons. US has moved from huge stockpiles of tends of thousands to thousands now. They also have moved from multiple warheads on a launch vehicle to a single warhead. Just because the US still has nukes doesn't mean they aren't working toward disarmament. The only issue not stopping the US from dismantling all at once is the fact that other countries like Russia still has a shitton of nukes. Might I also note both sides still have teams on full alert, like back in the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They also have moved from multiple warheads on a launch vehicle to a single warhead.
That's because they've moved to the "dial-a-yield" nukes (up to 350kT nukes using super-grade Pu-239) on cruise missiles and away from ICBMs. Only Trident subs have short range missiles, rest is moving to cruise missile deployment. It is anticipated that all nukes in US will be moved to cruise missiles only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_%28nuclear_warhead%29
So yes, US has moved away from MIRV because they've moved away from ICBMs. It's all cruise missiles
Disarmament (Score:2)
The only issue not stopping the US from dismantling all at once is the fact that other countries like Russia still has a shitton of nukes.
And non-treaty members, and noncompliant members, and Iran (soon)... Total nuclear disarmament is theoretically possible, but the world is far to broken for that to happen in the foreseeable future. As long as we have warmongering megalomaniacs in politics anywhere, nuclear war is never more than a few years away.
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:5, Informative)
Which the US also signed. Care to explain how they're moving towards disarmenent, as the treaty obligates them to?
I think you must've missed the whole thing about the U.S. going from over 30,000 nukes just a few decades back to under 10,000 today (of which under 2,000 are active). Kinda a big deal, but hey, why keep track of annoying facts like that [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you must've missed the whole thing about the U.S. going from over 30,000 nukes just a few decades back to under 10,000 today (of which under 2,000 are active). Kinda a big deal, but hey, why keep track of annoying facts like that [wikipedia.org]?
Not as big of a deal as when the department store here had a half-off sale on socks for $100! Still kind of expensive, but where else are you gonna save $100 on a pair of socks?!
The US should have made 30,000,000 nukes. Then, they could look like Mother Teresa when they go down to just 10,000,000.
So the US has under 10000 nukes, how cute.
Iran has 0.
But hey, facts are annoying if they don't come in the form of misleading ratios.
Besides, what harm could any group do with only 10000 nukes?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even begin to understand the concepts of mutually assured destruction?
The non-proliferation treaty only has teeth if those states with nukes maintain an arsenal strong enough to wipe an offending state off the map.
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:5, Informative)
It's physically and politically impossible to eliminate 32,000 nukes over-night. And while you may argue with the length of the time table, a 95% reduction in weapons that are manned and ready to use certainly ought to count for "moving".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just fine thank you? The US has been reducing nuclear capacity for 30 years...
But yet still has the fire power to destroy the world several times over... Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones.
Non Sequiter. Has nothing to do with nuclear disarmament or non-proliferation.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones.
Non Sequiter. Has nothing to do with nuclear disarmament or non-proliferation.
No comment on the first part of the post hu? figures..
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they do not since they signed those rights away when they signed the none proliferation treaty. And they are not making weapons just ask them.
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about "rights" in such matters doesnt seem to make much sense. Who defines what "rights" a country has? Certainly Iran is free to try to develop a nuclear program, but the rest of the world is free to try to prevent them-- Its a sure thing that once developed they will use them offensively.
IMO youd have to be crazy not to want to discourage Iran from having nukes, whatever your opinion of Israel is-- unless you really do want to spur on WW3, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
There cannot and will not be a "citation" until it actually happens. Given the stance of Iran towards Israel, and given the fact that Israel is both highly vulnerable to a nuclear strike and highly capable of a strong counter attack, how crazy would you have to be to want to "see what will happen"?
Re: (Score:2)
The US still has stock piles of chemical weapons as well... But they will get around to destroying them.. One day.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm [fas.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.
Is that a natural right? LOL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No nation whose leader has sworn to destroy another nation has the right to have any sort of weapons at all.
The US swore to destroy the evil empire that was the USSR, The UN should go into the US and take all of their weapons of mass destruction ASAP.
Re: (Score:2)
The US swore to destroy the evil empire that was the USSR, The UN should go into the US and take all of their weapons of mass destruction ASAP.
Bringing down a political structure and eliminating an entire people group are more than a little bit different.
Re: (Score:2)
The US swore to destroy the evil empire that was the USSR, The UN should go into the US and take all of their weapons of mass destruction ASAP.
Bringing down a political structure and eliminating an entire people group are more than a little bit different.
Yet both involve forcing others to conform to your ideals or die. Plus my reply to grandparent involved nation states, please re-read his post then mine.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that a majority of UN Troops are from the US right? The US also pours more funds into the UN than any other country. If memory serves, the UN was also founded in large part by the US.
My point being is that the UN would be severely weakened without the US. I don't think the UN will start making such demands as "nuclear demilitarization" any time soon... Especially with countries such as Iran and North Korea actively seeking nukes themselves.
At least the countries who do have nukes (at present) understand the concept of MAD.
PS: Get you facts straight... or your point... or your sense of reality.
(can't believe I bothered to reply at all now that it's typed)
I'm sorry I forgot this tag... /SARCASM
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:5, Informative)
And don't start with that "he was mistranslated" bullshit"
Perhaps you should educate yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_controversy [wikipedia.org]
The Persian language has no idiom for "wipe off the map". That idiom belongs to English.
Also, he was quoting Khomeini. A better translation is "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time". Doesn't have quite the same scary ring to it, so some "journalists" decided to spice it up a bit by adding idiomatic language that doesn't exist in the native tongue.
You should also look into the long history of covert CIA ops that the US has taken in Iran. It's not very diplomatic when you engineer the overthrow of the Democratically elected government of another sovereign country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Uhm, no. When I read the translation of his statement, the message that I get is "we want Israel to collapse just like the USSR did".
Calling for regime change in Israel doesn't mean "kill every last Jew in Jerusalem". If regime change did mean genocide, then we would killed all the Iranians back in the 50s when our CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran.
Also, Ahmadinejad is very careful to elaborate a difference between Jews and what he sees as "Zionists". It is a careful elab
Re: (Score:2)
"A nation that refuses to use diplomacy is a nation that should be left without weapons"
-Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us..." -President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Both are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us [wikipedia.org]
Is that the kind of Diplomacy you are looking for?
Not pretty, but certainly a lot better than chanting the destruction of Israel (not that I agree what has been done to the Palestinians) or who blatantly keep labeling any external they disagree with an 'enemy'. But hey, don't let those details stop your line of logic.
Re: (Score:2)
If by 'disagree with,' you mean 'have their democratically elected governments overthrown by, to be replaced with dictator strongmen puppets over a 70 year period', then yeah. But hey, don't let those details stop your line of logic, either. If you don't know it happened, you can confidently argue from ignorance!
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:2)
On the very same page, it says Jesus said the same thing. I never knew Jesus was a Sith, but our history makes much more sense now.
Re: (Score:2)
A nation that refuses to use diplomacy is a nation that should be left without weapons.
Will you obliterate the IDF? or shall I?
What [wikipedia.org] do you mean? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Every nation state wants power. The more the better...
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you fucking kidding? "No one is threatening Iran"? I had to rub my eyes to make sure I wasn't seeing things.
The US and Israel threaten Iran all the time. Journalists usually refer to it as "saber rattling". Mind you, Iran does not have a single nuclear weapon, and yet they are threatened repeatedly by two countries that do have an inventory of nuclear weapons.
If you really want to deal with "regional threats", how about getting Israel to ditch all their nukes? For that matter, how about getting Israel to stop stealing land from Palestinians? The settlements have done more to destabilize the region then any bellicose Iranian rhetoric.
Meanwhile, you seriously think that devout fundamentalist Muslims would really drop a nuclear weapon on their own holy land? Jerusalem is pretty important to them, too. For that matter, what evidence do you have that they want nuclear weapons, as opposed to nuclear energy?
Oh, and by the way, please leave the strawman "traitorous lover of Persians!" at the door. I can dislike Iran while simultaneously standing up against stupid people who wish to exploit the ridiculous behavior of the Iranian government for political gain.
Muslims bomb their holy sites (Score:2)
Meanwhile, you seriously think that devout fundamentalist Muslims would really drop a nuclear weapon on their own holy land?
Yes, I do, I'm sure they would! [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What a stark demonstration of ignorance.
Look deeper. Most of those query results are not Muslims bombing mosques.
Of the ones that are, by and large they are committed by fringe lunatics blowing up other people's holy lands. For instance, a Shi'a blowing up a Sunni mosque probably doesn't view the Sunni mosque as holy land.
None of them are religious leaders like Khomeini, who is ultimately the man who calls the shots in Iran.
Re: (Score:3)
yes, they would bomb their holy land (Score:2)
it would hasten the return of the the mahdi, the hidden imam. if you are promised salvation at armageddeon, and you are a true believer, maybe you can hasten salvation by hastening armageddeon. you have to kill some people to save them right?
if that sounds like religious fundamentalist self-fulfilling prophecy kookery, well yes, yes it is
you do realize that iran is a theocracy, right? power is invested in a bunch of grumpy old men who somehow have a monopoly on interpreting the willpower of god. that's thei
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I dunno. I ran has been threatening everyone in the region for decades. They fund hizbullah and hamas, and give them weapons. How does one steal land that's fairly won in a defensive war? Again how does one steal land from refugees that migrated there to be refugees.
The only reason why Jerusalem is important to them is because it denies Jews and Christians access to temple mount and other sites. It's not holy to them, not in the least. If you're going to make arguments, at least know what you're ta
Re: (Score:3)
destroyed.
Peaceful nations representative by some type of democracy (any form of governance where the people are well represented) which provides for stability, both economically and sociologically, deserve nuclear weapons.
Haha
The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (known as the 28 Mordad coup[1] in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States as operation TPAJAX.[2] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rez Shh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on U.S. support to hold on to power until his own overthrow
Re: (Score:2)
Well then. According to your dipshit logic then I to have a right to become a nuclear power.
How about you recognize a crazy fuck country when you see one.
Iran should never have nuclear weapons.
North Korea should never have been allowed to create nuclear weapons.
Pakistan should never have been allowed nuclear weapons.
India I am not so sure about.
France I am not worried about as their nuclear weapons are really just a tool for whomever invades them next for the auto win.
China and the former USSR were to fucking big to start a war over to prevent them from getting it.
So who put you in charge of the world and who can do what in it? What makes you think that the US doesn't make millions of people in other lands suffer and die for PROFIT.... My logic is that the US is not some magic HERO or protector but a nation like any other. The only thing any nation cares about is itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Define 'enemies', please. From the rest of the world's POV, Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.
Define "rest of the world" please. Iran and many European countries were trading partners up until 200x.
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons" citation please. According to numerous reports by the IAEA there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
If only I had mod points for +1 Funny.
Re:Whose enemies? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, never mind that they are also underneath four different UN sanctions regarding their nuclear program [wikipedia.org]...
I'm sure it's just hype in the media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're still going on about Iraq?
Do you have no clue what was happening in Iraq?
Saddam HAD nuclear ambitions. This is a fact.
Saddam ACTED as if he were hiding things of the nuclear-bomb-development variety. This, too, is a fact.
Saddam WANTED THE WORLD TO SUSPECT HE WAS DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. This is also a fact.
It was just the same with all other sorts of WMDs -- whether or not there were any, Saddam's intention was always to imply that he was hiding them, but never to give any proof that he had any
Re: (Score:2)
And if I take something you made and give it to someone else who wants to use it for a nefarious purpose, should you be held accountable for your actions as well? I haven't heard about any indications that Siemens sold these to Iran, whereas I have seen it reported over the last year that Iran procured these through illicit channels because they are under embargo for items such as these. Besides, if Siemens sold them to Iran, they wouldn't be helping the creators of Stuxnet. It's bad business to help others
Re: (Score:3)
Siemens is a company, not a country. While state politics probably play a part in business decisions, really they're most interested in who is going to pay them for something they sell or service. Through the eyes of "capitalists", perceived commercial needs of potential customers will lead the company's decision in what it sells to who. I'm not trying to judge that process, just pointing out that Siemens might not be quick to let one country's (or group of countries') rival status be a deterrent to doing b
Re: (Score:2)
We've always been at war with Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure my country has no problem at all with Iran.
Potential FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
I view everything which comes through government channels from Iran as Potential FUD. The rigged election, suppression of protests, detentions, disapperances, etc. of political opponents smells worse than when the Shah was running the country. For all we can tell they didn't really have a worm at all, but failed to read the owners manual properly.
Actual FUD (Score:2, Flamebait)
Fear-mongering is a tried-and-true motivator. Worked for Hitler. Worked for Stalin. Worked for Bush.
Too many leaders, world and smaller-group, who can't motivate and bring their people up through their own efforts try to defer their failures by bringing the other guys down.
Sadly, millions of people listen to their rantings, buy into their fear, and support their mongering.
Re: (Score:2)
Fear-mongering is a tried-and-true motivator. Worked for Hitler. Worked for Stalin. Worked for Bush
Looks like you're trying to make it work for you too.
Re: (Score:2)
Fear-mongering is a tried-and-true motivator. Worked for Hitler. Worked for Stalin. Worked for Bush
Looks like you're trying to make it work for you too.
Whenever you hear leaders speak you should consider everything they say to be potential garbage - they have their motivations - whether astro-turfing the massacre of innocents or to elevate their own stars. Sometimes they are upfront and honest, while others it pays to have a critical mind (unless you want to remain happy, because ignorance is bliss - until it's you being rounded up, that is.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not at all. Each of those guys was an arguably fine leader, until they went off.
Hitler pulled the Germans out of the depression returning Germany to a prosperous state, even bringing the world the Volkswagen. Then he went nuts and invaded most of Europe, and slaughtered millions of people because he didn't feel they fit his weird mold of what a person should be. It was (in part) this fear-mongering that brought out a hatred of the gypsies, gays, Jews, and frankly any non-Arian that he used to really ramp up
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe like a dozen VWs rolled off the line before they were converted entirely to wartime production. Hitler did get his, though.
I'm sure it's nothing... (Score:4, Funny)
texas? (Score:2)
He said information from infected systems was sent to computers in Texas.
Anyone else get an image of an SNL-esque GWB cackling in front of his computer as his screen lights up with ill-gotten Iranian data?
Wrong in so many ways.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Especially the part where GWB knows how to operate a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously propoganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is the old they are so brilliant but made one stupid error trick that is so popular on TV shows and bad spy novels. In Texas it was sent to the one eye man stroking the his pet armadillo that has a laser mounted on his head.
And it was both the US and Israel at fault.
What they don't know is that it was Canada, Sweden, and Ireland that pulled this off.
Well good luck with that (Score:2)
Something tells me if Iran wants to put on a show trial for Seimens in the IRanian courts, it'll just result in Seimens exiting from IRan and they will no longer be able to purchase any new or replacement hardware, should they need it.
Iranian Idiot (Score:2)
What the hell does Siemens have to do with the code running in their SCADA systems? Siemens sells PLCs and SCADA software. YOU hire someone to program it for you. At no point in the transaction does Siemens have a copy of your code or architecture unless you GIVE it to them... dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell does Siemens have to do with the code running in their SCADA systems? Siemens sells PLCs and SCADA software. YOU hire someone to program it for you. At no point in the transaction does Siemens have a copy of your code or architecture unless you GIVE it to them... dumbass.
Because a significant part of the stuxnet hack was to modify their SCADA programming environment so that it would embed the malicious payload in the SCADA instructions without revealing its existence to the SCADA programmers. Coincidentally, the Department of Homeland Security had supposedly just finished "reviewing the Siemens source code for security flaws". Could there be collusion? Sure. The bigger question is if anyone will care if Iran tries to sue them? Doubt it. It's not like Siemens execs are
Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd totally evaluate my dongle with that "Persian Princess".
Me too. I would take her to a weekend in the King Solomon Hotel in Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
Do your illegal malware-infected centrifuges got you down?
Meet a new sexy friend on IranianPersonals.com while you take a load off in one of your mortal enemy's best hotels! While you're there you can get a new and improved Siemens SmartSCADA system for next to nothing! You can even reinfect it again with all-new driverless USB thumb drives!
Probably true. *sigh* (Score:2)
I wish it weren't so believable. Unfortunately the United States government (at the least) has become more adept at spinning its bad behavior to sound good rather than becoming adept at actual good behavior. So much for principles....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Yes, the knowledge to do Stuxnet isn't exactly stuff you find on the street, it wouldn't be hard for a blackhat organization to obtain this information. This could be a group of people who didn't like Iran, the US, or Israel to do something like this, just for kicks, or like the Joker, "to watch the world burn."
What one has to do is figure out likelihoods. Unlike most things, it is possible to fake an attack and have it look like it came from a completely different source.
making crap up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the controller's were part of a closed network, hence the reason for sneaking the stuxnet virus in via USB. Why on earth would it be trying to report back to anywhere?
Either, I have my facts wrong, or somebody is just making crap up to point a finger.
Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(...)the Pentagon(...)
have been involved in keeping the world safe by keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of genocidal dictators and oppressive theocracies
You mean the military guys from the USA?
The same self-serving country which promoted oppressive right-wing dictatorships in Latin America because of US' fear of Communism?
Yeah, nice kind-hearted guys indeed, they really work hard to make the World a better place.
RA (Score:2)
The other day... (Score:2)
-Iran
I fear the lawyers with beards. (Score:2)
I'm sure Siemens and the United States and Israel will be devastated by this outcome and will rush to settle. Never fight an angry warthog in court. [bbc.co.uk]
Truly this is horrible. This will definitely sour the relations between the parties. What with the whole hostage thingie [wikipedia.org], the desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map [nytimes.com], nuclear weaponry ambition [cfr.org]. L
Unblock Slashdot, Iran (Score:2)
You could have known about this three months ago [slashdot.org].
Get a Grip (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If the US government and Isreal did callude with Seimens to make the stuxnet virus, taking great pains to hide its source, introduction, and its operation in the Iranian systems... Then why would they have it sending data directly back to a site in Texas? The would have also been careful enough to redirect the data through relays in other parts of the world to conceal their identity...
Well, depending on what part of Texas, they might have been sending it there as some sort of copyright claim. You don't want "virtual copies" to exist on other computers that aren't licensed. Probably depends on what sort of EULA Siemens and Uncle Sam worked out...
Re: (Score:2)
Plausible deniability.
Whether it did go to Texas first, last, or in the middle, it's possible to deny that as an actual end-point. It can be excused away by identifying the Texan who's compromised PC is relaying the worm's payload...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody expects the Canadian Inquisition!
Nah, doesn't have the same ring.
Re: (Score:2)