US Cyberattack Hurt Iran's Ability To Target Oil Tankers, Officials Say (nytimes.com) 58
"A secret cyberattack against Iran in June wiped out a critical database used by Iran's paramilitary arm to plot attacks against oil tankers and degraded Tehran's ability to covertly target shipping traffic in the Persian Gulf, at least temporarily," reports The New York Times, citing senior American officials. From the report: Iran is still trying to recover information destroyed in the June 20 attack and restart some of the computer systems -- including military communications networks -- taken offline, the officials said. Senior officials discussed the results of the strike in part to quell doubts within the Trump administration about whether the benefits of the operation outweighed the cost -- lost intelligence and lost access to a critical network used by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Iran's paramilitary forces.
The United States and Iran have long been involved in an undeclared cyberconflict, one carefully calibrated to remain in the gray zone between war and peace. The June 20 strike was a critical attack in that ongoing battle, officials said, and it went forward even after President Trump called off a retaliatory airstrike that day after Iran shot down an American drone. Iran has not escalated its attacks in response, continuing its cyberoperations against the United States government and American corporations at a steady rate, according to American government officials.
The United States and Iran have long been involved in an undeclared cyberconflict, one carefully calibrated to remain in the gray zone between war and peace. The June 20 strike was a critical attack in that ongoing battle, officials said, and it went forward even after President Trump called off a retaliatory airstrike that day after Iran shot down an American drone. Iran has not escalated its attacks in response, continuing its cyberoperations against the United States government and American corporations at a steady rate, according to American government officials.
Why not corrupt it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of annihilating their data, why didn't they simply corrupt the information they had? It's far more difficult to identify a problem if you don't know you have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why not corrupt it? (Score:1)
Re: Why not corrupt it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is up for reelection next year. He has to publicly blab about things that should be secret, so he can take credit and get people to vote for him.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of annihilating their data, why didn't they simply corrupt the information they had?
Because that doesn’t make for nearly as good of a press release or campaign talking point.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of annihilating their data, why didn't they simply corrupt the information they had?
Who says they didn't corrupt the database first? That would make any backups worthless. Then again with this level of access it's possible that even if they hadn't corrupted anything the database is worthless because they might have corrupted the database. They cannot know the data is good without verifying every single entry.
It's far more difficult to identify a problem if you don't know you have a problem.
It's far more difficult to display one's cyberwarfare skill if no one knows that there is a problem. Maybe the data was corrupted and they started to suspect something. Instead of
Re: (Score:1)
That other expert called in is then detected by the NSA due to the call tree getting use.
A top expert not often "called" gets linked in by the NSA.
Stop systems from working and everyone walks away and talks in person about the total security problem.
A more called to the office in person event thats is not much use.
The NSA gets less telco data to work on.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that the data wasn't corrupted for some period of time before the Iranians knew it was, and then was deleted or rendered totally unusable?
Then the Iranians are in the pickle we've all probably been in where you have good (as in accessible and restorable) backups, but you don't know if you have one that doesn't suffer from the same corruption, because you don't know exactly when it happened.
Assuming you have very deep backup repository, sure, you can make a reasonable guess as to how far back
Re: (Score:2)
So right now they are looking to make noise so that they can show why they still have all those people and try to push their way into other areas. This can be seen in various public speeches where Generals have talked about having tools that tell other countries you got hacked by the USA.
President Trump allowed the DoD to make it easier to do cyber at
cyber attacks could lead to escalation (Score:3)
I really don't like the idea of using cyber weapons in undeclared wars. There are no ground rules or treaties in place to keep a cyber war from escalating into a real war. Cyber weapons have the potential to do a huge amount of damage - lets say an attack blew up a nuclear reactor (Chernobyl style), would a nuclear weapon response be appropriate?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Cyber weapons have the potential to do a huge amount of damage - lets say an attack blew up a nuclear reactor (Chernobyl style), would a nuclear weapon response be appropriate?
Only a Chernobyl style nuclear reactor can be blown up Chernobyl style. Since no more of such reactors exist then this is an impossible event to recreate.
The reactors at Chernobyl were RBMK models, built with a very specific flaw. This flaw was that of having a very high positive void reactivity coefficient, meaning that if a void appears in the cooling water this can increase the rate of fission. A void would be a steam bubble in the water, which would come if the reactor was run too hot. Increasing th
Re: (Score:2)
It should, perhaps, be noted that Chernobyl did NOT "blow up".
It should also be noted that the only way for a nuclear reactor to blow up would be to cram it full of TNT and detonate the TNT. Which would NOT produce a nuclear explosion, but would probably be reported that way by people who know as little about the subject as you do...
And finally, it should be noted that, in general, nuclear reactor controls are NOT attached to the interwebs, an
Explosions (Score:2)
It should, perhaps, be noted that Chernobyl did NOT "blow up".
There were explosions [wikipedia.org] so yeah it kind of did "blow up". It was these very explosions that made dealing with the problem so challenging. The explosions blew off the "biological shield" and damaged the reactor casing and generated substantial fallout.
It should also be noted that the only way for a nuclear reactor to blow up would be to cram it full of TNT and detonate the TNT.
A nuclear reactor doesn't need to detonate the reactor core in the sense of a nuclear weapon to have an explosion and to spread death and radiation far and wide. An attack on the controls, sensors, and communications surrounding a nuclear plant could very rea
Re: (Score:2)
> It should, perhaps, be noted that Chernobyl did NOT "blow up".
There was at least one steam explosion. By definition it did "blow up".
Re: (Score:2)
Can we maybe not attack countries that haven't (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm so bloody sick and tired of my government trying to get me and my tax dollars into Iraq War II: Electric Boogaloo. Please, for the love of Pete, don't fall for it this time America.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever claimed it was a treaty in the regular sense. It was specifically crafted in a way, that required no ratification through parliaments or the like. It was, as you already noted, a "gentlemen's agreement", with no ambition to turn into anything else. What you describe as deficiency was in fact a basic underlying design principle of the whole agreement to get the thing going.
DT45 then decided to abandon all pretences of being a gentleman, and unilaterally reneged on the "gentlemen's agreement", to
Not even Iran claim they have rights to the strait (Score:5, Informative)
> Iran does have a right to control it's own waters,
What?
First, they do NOT have any right to impede traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, according to both international law and even their own declaration. Both UNCLOS, the Geneva and the Geneva Convention, as well as pre-convention traditional international law forbid Iran (or any other nation) from seizing a ship in the strait.
Secondly, according to Iran, they took the first ship from Oman's side of the strait, not their side. They announced the same day that they had "towed it toward Iran's territorial waters" after engaging in piracy by seizing the ship.
Sometimes you have insightful things to say about topics you know a lot about. This isn't one of those times.
Re: (Score:3)
First, they do NOT have any right to impede traffic in the Strait of Hormuz
Shooting down a drone is not "impeding traffic".
We may never know if the drone was in Iranian airspace (as Iran claims) or in international airspace (as America claims). But we do know that America started a war based on lies about WMD in Iraq, and started another war based on lies about the Tonkin Gulf incident.
America deserves no benefit-of-the-doubt here. We should assume the US Military and the Trump administration are lying until proven otherwise.
We're talking about ships (Score:2)
Fyi we're talking about seizing oil tankers.
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing that is certain in a situation like the drone shoot down is that either side will lie if that makes them look better. Diplomacy is just warfare with cocktail parties.
It almost doesn't matter who's lying. In situations like this both sides try to provoke the other into doing something that they can point to and say to everyone else in the world, "See? This is exactly what I was talking about."
So while the drone in question didn't need to cross over into Iranian airspace, you can bet it got as
Re: (Score:2)
Where have you been the last months? Iran is seizing oil tankers in the straight. Nobody is talking about the drone shootdown.
Ok, that's fine (Score:2, Insightful)
And the point about backing out of the deal still stands. The United States is trying to provoke a war. Period. And it's clear it's a political war, one meant to cement support for the current administration.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
but then the UK didn't have a right to seize Iran's tankers. And the point about backing out of the deal still stands. The United States is trying to provoke a war. Period. And it's clear it's a political war, one meant to cement support for the current administration.
Yes, the UK DID have the legal right to do this. Iran is subject to trade restrictions imposed by the UN (i.e. international law) and the basis for the UK seizing the tankers was violation of that restriction.
Iran had zero justification of seizing the UK's tankers in the strites. Merchant vessels (heck, Military vessels for that matter) are allowed to transit these waters pretty much unhindered by Iran or Ormon. This is laid out in international law and treaties to which Iran has agreed. As long as the t
Re:Ok, that's fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
but then the UK didn't have a right to seize Iran's tankers.
Yes, the UK DID have the legal right to do this. Iran is subject to trade restrictions imposed by the UN (i.e. international law) and the basis for the UK seizing the tankers was violation of that restriction.
Do you have a source for that? According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], "Most UN sanctions were lifted 16 January 2016, following the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" and "The UN sanctions against Iran do not include oil exports from Iran."
As I recall from news in the US, the US claimed that Iran was violating sanctions against Syria by exporting oil to Syria. This is also sketchy at best; not a great source, but according to The New Humanitarian [thenewhumanitarian.org], "There are no UN sanctions on Syria – Russian and Chinese vetoes h
Re: (Score:2)
While the waters of the Straits of Hormuz are divided between Oman and Iran, the Law of the Sea grants ships a right to pass through such straits without interference, as long as they're going all the way *through* and don't stray from the direct path through.
HOWEVER... that's not a blanket prohibition on countries intercepting ships for reason other than incursion into territorial water per se. Britain intercepted an Iranian tanker in the Straits of Gibraltar with the justification that they were enforcin
Seriously? You buy this BS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone that is educated in these types of security and technology would know that this effort was a waste, and shouldnâ(TM)t have been disclosed to begin with.
These guys are politicians - everything they do is only worthwhile if they can gain credit from it. I read this and immediately thought of an exchange from Seinfeld (BTW Trump often reminds me of George Costanza):
George : So let me ask you a question about the tip jar . I had a little thing with the calzone guy this week . I go to drop a buck in the tip jar and just as I am about to drop it in he looks the other way . And then when I am leaving he gives me this look think thanks for nothing . I mean if they
Re: (Score:1)
Like the way the French win when they going for looking for worms in networked computer systems?
Re: (Score:2)
If we think an actual war with Iran is a real possibility, keeping our cyber-powder dry would have been a good idea. If there are known vulnerabilities in Iran's systems, it'd be better for those to go unpatched until the war starts.
But I don't think the Trump Administration wants war. Bolton surely does, but what Trump clearly wants is to get a better deal than Obama got. That's a win for him, and if he can get it, more power to him. But I don't think he will, because of Iranian politics. The elements
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you can get what you could get by war without the actual war, who wouldn't be for that? The problem is that it requires Iranians to be fundamentally different creatures than Americans. When a foreign power obviously tries to destabilize your government, most people more inclined to blame the foreign power, even for things that are your own government's fault. The Cuban regime would have collapsed years ago if it weren't for the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Cyber war is not war (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has legitimized cyber attacks as not being an act of war.
So if Iran or China attack a US system, that is fine too.
Those in glass houses...
That said, it is very good policy for the spooks that did it. They are hoping that Iran will retaliate. Then their budget will go up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
At least we know that, 30 years ago, US warships were capable of defending themselves against passenger aircraft [wikipedia.org].
Some sources have suggested that the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland [wikipedia.org] was done by Iran in retaliation, although Libya was blamed and paid reparations. (And look how much good that did Muammar Gaddafi.)
More unnamed sources (Score:2)
From the fake New York Times. When will people learn this is all fake.
We know so, because the con artist has repeatedly said the NY Time is fake and failing. Obviously it must be true so this story is completely bogus and not worth the time to read. Anyone who believes it is again falling for the failing mainstream media.
Re: (Score:2)
article is both paywalled and total shit (Score:2)
Iran's paramilitary arm? You mean their police? Or what the fuck?
It truly is a slashdot tradition to always link the worst article on any subject.
Slashdot is a poster child for nepotism. Clearly editors aren't hired on the basis of competence, or work ethic.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] which is separate from the actual Iranian Navy. They are an extension of the revolutionary guard paramilitary group.
Re: (Score:2)
How are they not a military force? They're clearly not just police. I call shenanigans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is why we have the word 'paramilitary', they are not quite military or police
No. Police are paramilitary. They have ranks and offices, and chain of command, and privileges that others don't have, but they are not subject to military justice or command. But those guys sound like they're both attached to the military and under military command.
Insert yet more neocon cyber bullshit (Score:1)
How Neocons Destabilized Europe [commondreams.org]
Little Bobby Tables' oil tanker? (Score:1)