Industrial materials fab: change raw materials in critical alloy mixtures; mess with annealing time/temperature recipes; dial down forces in component proof tests ("oops! Why did that turbine rotor blade separate?").
Lots of opportunities for malware to be nasty outside of weapons systems.
Iran was having their nuclear scientists assassinated in the streets at the time stuxnet was being infiltrated into the nuclear facilities.
I have a feeling that when you have that level of resources being dedicated to a mission, your not hinging your whole plan on someone picking up a random usb and plugging it in.
Citation please! I’ve never heard of this actually being done IRL - only on CSI type shows. Where/when/who has actually used this technique in a killing? It seems overly complex and prone to suboptimal outcomes (the vast majority of car crashes only result in minor injuries).
Not really a conspiracy:
Trump is involved with these people as well:
In addition to everything else it’s doing, the worm is now playing us back a 21-second data recording on our computer screens that it captured when the centrifuges were working normally.
Wow, that was a fascinating read. The amount of resources and the level of sophistication is mind boggling. Somehow it feels like the finest brains alive are either working on making more deadlier weapons or on thwarting other people's efforts in making them.
I am not convinced that Stuxnet is more complicated than, say Excel, Windows, Android or a hedge fund's trading platform.
So... not much of a story at the moment. Iran claimed its under attack by a "Stuxnet-like" virus.
Doesn't seem like there are any other significant details beyond that. It's not even clear that the target was nuclear centrifuges this time.
No doubt, USA already has the list of employees and knows their weak points.
created: 3 days ago
Wouldn't be surprised if they are sold or used ideologically to sway opinion. The internet once prospered and thrived on anonymity but feel that sentiment is shifting back towards integrity and longstanding handles. Perhaps there's a way to do this still pseudonymously with zero knowledge proofs, though likely will be yet another system capable of being gamed.
Flagged to oblivion but if you've been following recent events you can probably make a pretty good guess as to the article. (Hint: NY Times)
New users can submit up to 2 stories every 3 hours. Bad users can submit up to 1 story every 3 hours.
Looks like the bot is submitting at precisely that limit, but the timestamps aren't quite accurate enough. Some interested user could check the API to get the full times.
I wish there were some way to contact the bot author. I want to see the code. It's no small feat to write an effective bot.
By allowing new users to submit stories, they can build up enough karma to downvote all through automation. 1 a day would just slow the process but not stop the spammers.
A story every few hours is ridiculous for any user, let alone new users.
Anyone know if there are any international law covering cyberattacks?
It's easy for people in the US to forget the effects of distance like this, because the US approach to this situation would involve parking a carrier group or three (which Israel doesn't have) off Iran's coast in the Persian Gulf, using those to suppress air defenses, and then using those and strategic bombers (which Israel also doesn't have) to strike ground targets.
Or put another way, fear of Israel's military sure hasn't prevented Iran funding Hezbollah, which would generally be considered an act of war in itself given that Hezbollah then uses those funds to fire rockets and artillery into Israel.
You see some politicians mention that all software developers should be licensed, and we see companies requiring signed code to allow it to run on platforms. Licenses for servers happen in some places. Its all little step, but a few more gets you a locked and licensed computing network.
I'll bet there are a few companies running private wars too.
Historically, 'casus belli' just describes an action which justifies a state of war. Nations can cite whatever they want, although self-defense is generally the most defensible basis. In that sense it's a permissive concept; it does not force a country to become "at war". So something like the shooting down of a warplane (e.g. a Russian plane over Syria, by Turkey) is clearly inter-military violence, but the injured party can (and did) elect not to declare war. As far as Iran's response here, that's probably the extent of the matter: they don't want to use this as casus belli, so they won't.
More recently, I know of three other definitions for an "act of war" which are potentially relevant.
1. Most nations have laws which use the term, for instance to prohibit citizens from doing business with adversaries. These are often quite narrow - the US definition (18 U.S. Code § 2331 4) would go unmet by this incident because it was not armed conflict. I don't know the Iranian or Israeli internal definitions, but with the array of sanctions and other boundaries already in place they're probably irrelevant. (And internally at least, Iran can't actually be at war with something it doesn't acknowledge to be a state.)
2. The United Nations Charter, since both Iran and Israel are signatories. This relies on the term 'force', not acts of war, and is deeply unclear about what constitutes force. Resolution 2625 states "armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law".
Reading narrowly, this is pretty clearly "other interference against its economic elements", but the next clause of that resolution would render most sanctions, economic espionage, and other common practices illegal acts of war and so it's widely ignored. There have been rumblings about the status of cyberattacks, but there's definitely no settled law on that matter yet.
3. The Hague and Geneva Conventions, since both are signatories. It could constitute an act of war creating wartime-status obligations to personnel or an undeclared act of war violating the "Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities".
As far as the declaration statute, I don't see any sign of what constitutes a "state of war", and I suspect that in 1907 it was considered obvious. As far as "prisoner of war" status and other restrictions like lawful surrender, the people spreading the exploit are debatably governed if they're members of a military, but not otherwise governed as a militia or volunteer corps.
Given all that, I'm reasonably sure there's no international law yet governing cyberattacks. Attacks which have death tolls or directly interact with weaponry could presumably be governed by their consequences, in the same way that non-electronic sabotage would. But in terms of economic and other nonviolent consequences, it's an open question.
The UNC could certainly be used to rule them acts of war in the same sense that smashing up factories or killing crops would be, but such an interpretation could potentially also apply to stealing schematics or wiretapping trade delegations, which have historically not been considered acts of war.
There are some pretty good analyses of this question out there, but most end up at "we dunno yet". It'll probably be a question up for debate and further treaties within the next decade or so, and the result will likely be a function of how such attacks have been used so far.
They did write it on a ballistic missile.
Plenty of other quotes and video of similar threats.
>He suggested that the Hebrew lettering may have been "a one-time event, and not necessarily authorized in Tehran." The botching of the text may suggest that the gambit was ad-hoc "sloganeering" by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, "rather than an explicit policy dictated from the top," Thielmann said.
From your link.
That Trump would tell bibi to go town if he wants to is extremely plausible, it’s pretty weird to question that.