×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Says Siemens Helped US, Israel Build Stuxnet

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the fair-and-balanced dept.

Security 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

300 comments

You can't be first... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860034)

if you read the article.

Whose enemies? (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | about 3 years ago | (#35860038)

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? (5, Insightful)

ae1294 (1547521) | about 3 years ago | (#35860086)

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? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860240)

no, I'm afraid they don't.

Re:Whose enemies? (5, Informative)

JBMcB (73720) | about 3 years ago | (#35860254)

Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.

Not according to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed.

Re:Whose enemies? (0, Troll)

zonky (1153039) | about 3 years ago | (#35860272)

Which the US also signed. Care to explain how they're moving towards disarmenent, as the treaty obligates them to?

Re:Whose enemies? (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 3 years ago | (#35860350)

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? (3, Interesting)

zonky (1153039) | about 3 years ago | (#35860630)

Agreed, reduction has occurred. But you're not naive enough to sit their and pretend that Disarmament was ever the intention of the Nuclear powers under this treaty. The NPT was a political tool to coerce nation states into a public declaration that they wouldn't seek Nuclear Weapons - a damned if they do, and a damned if they don't approach. It completely fails to address the fact that Middle Eastern nation states live next door to a nuclear power who they have been at war at multiple times over the later half of the 20th Century who they distrust.

Re:Whose enemies? (3, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 3 years ago | (#35860832)

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 states that had nuclear weapons gave them up (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine).

So I guess that the nuclear powers are slowly abiding by the stipulation in the NNPT to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

Re:Whose enemies? (4, Insightful)

zonky (1153039) | about 3 years ago | (#35860948)

Israel has never publically confirmed a nuclear test - but the Vela Incident has always assumed to be a combined South Africa/Israel test.

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:Whose enemies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860932)

It completely fails to address the fact that Middle Eastern nation states live next door to a nuclear power who they have been at war at multiple times over the later half of the 20th Century who they distrust.

Oh, please! The Arabs are afraid of an unprovoked nuclear attack from teh Jooz?
Who is always the aggressor in the Middle East?

Re:Whose enemies? (2)

masshuu (1260516) | about 3 years ago | (#35860366)

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 cold war days, ready to press a button and fire a couple thousands nukes within 1 minute and their entire arsenal in 15 minutes.

Re:Whose enemies? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860670)

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 now. Each aircraft carrier has enough nukes onboard to flatted a significant part of this planet.

Disarmament (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | about 3 years ago | (#35860758)

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? (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 3 years ago | (#35860396)

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:Whose enemies? (4, Informative)

prgrmr (568806) | about 3 years ago | (#35860444)

Sure. There's the SALT 1, SALT II, START I, START II, START III, SORT and New START treaties with the USSR/Russian Federation. The US had 32,000 nuclear weapons in the 1960s, and are down to a little over 3,000 weapons deployed, and another few thousand in inventory, being decommissioned or used for R&D, with the full implementation of the New START treaty dropping deployed weapons to 1,550.

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:Whose enemies? (1, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | about 3 years ago | (#35860290)

Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.

No nation whose leader has sworn to destroy another nation has the right to have any sort of weapons at all.

And don't start with that "he was mistranslated' bullshit. Diplomatic language was invented exactly to minimize the possibility of misunderstandings that could lead to war.

But, of course, you cannot expect that a nation who cannot understand the most basic principle of diplomacy [wikipedia.org], that of safe passage [wikipedia.org], would understand something subtler, like the proper use of language.

A nation that refuses to use diplomacy is a nation that should be left without weapons.

Re:Whose enemies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860494)

"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%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us

Is that the kind of Diplomacy you are looking for?

Re:Whose enemies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860550)

-Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us..."

She didn't say "if you are not with us we will destroy you", did she?

Re:Whose enemies? (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 3 years ago | (#35860562)

"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:Whose enemies? (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | about 3 years ago | (#35860942)

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:Whose enemies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860588)

A nation that refuses to use diplomacy is a nation that should be left without weapons.

Will you obliterate the IDF? or shall I?

Re:Whose enemies? (1)

mangu (126918) | about 3 years ago | (#35860924)

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:Whose enemies? (2, Insightful)

ae1294 (1547521) | about 3 years ago | (#35860968)

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:Whose enemies? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#35860302)

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:Whose enemies? (0, Troll)

GooberToo (74388) | about 3 years ago | (#35860390)

Sadly, a lot of absolute fucking morons such as yourself truly believe such statements. The truth is, they absolutely fucking do not. Only absolute fucking idiots would believe as you.

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. And frankly, in this day and age, the need for nuclear weapons has all but dissolved. Furthermore, only you've established one actually qualifies for nuclear weapons, the need for nuclear weapons all but disappears.

So basically, at this point in time, only rogue countries actually want to get nuclear weapons at this point. If you're not a rogue country, you basically don't want nukes. The fact a country wants nukes is a really strong indicator they likely shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.

That may sound harsh, but nuclear proliferation is really bad. Continued nuclear proliferation means some country is likely to see mushrooms because of some dip shit country - such as Iran.

Seriously, using the Iranian country as an example, if the government were overthrown, its extremely unlikely the new government would want or need nuclear weapons. So basically, the best weapon to prevent nuclear proliferation is to overthrow dip shit governments such as Iran.

Think about it. Iran is a regional power and regional threat. No one is threatening Iran. Internally the people of Iran want the government out. The Iranian government may want nukes, but that's exactly my point. The point at which they seriously invest in nuclear weapons is the point at which the government should be completely destroyed.

Re:Whose enemies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860424)

Sure. And we'll keep bombing their plants, don't worry ;)

Re:Whose enemies? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 3 years ago | (#35860936)

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:Whose enemies? (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 3 years ago | (#35860142)

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? (3, Funny)

vxice (1690200) | about 3 years ago | (#35860358)

"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.

Re:Whose enemies? (1)

murdocj (543661) | about 3 years ago | (#35860586)

"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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860878)

Yes. Our richest politicians and handsomest TV news personalities say that Iran is building nukes, therefore it must be true. Ignore what those IAEA nerds say.

Re:Whose enemies? (0)

GeneralSecretary (1959616) | about 3 years ago | (#35860838)

There's no evidence that Iran is NOT making nuclear weapons. According to the the NPT, to which Iran is a signatory, Iran as obligated to prove to the rest of the world through full IAEA inspections that they are not making weapons. Instead, Iran has hidden facilities and kicked out inspectors. The IAEA has truthfully reported that their is neither evidence of weapons nor proof that they are not making them because the IAEA does not have full access. We must assume that Iran is making the weapons, we cannot wait for a smoking gun because the smoke from this gun is a mushroom cloud. If Siemens did help build Stuxnet I applaud them.

Re:Whose enemies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860436)

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.

The enemy? Wait, we're at war with Iran?

Re:Whose enemies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860476)

Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Siemens' SIMATIC automation system is pretty generic and can be used for a lot of automation task. In some way, any computer "can be used to make nuclear weapons". It's quite unlikely that Iran ordered a SIMATIC system "for nuclear weapons production". Maybe Iran was not even the direct customer.

Re:Whose enemies? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 3 years ago | (#35860506)

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 destroy the product that you sold to your customer.

Re:Whose enemies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860848)

Iran is an enemy now? Should we bomb them? I'm sure the leaders of Iran are the enemy of many of their own people in Iran and in exile, but I think you should define enemy too.

Re:Whose enemies? (1)

ach1lles (671687) | about 3 years ago | (#35860908)

Couldn't help but notice : SIEMENS is a near-anagram of ENEMIES. Talk about subliminal messaging!

Not buying it the propoganda... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860076)

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...

Re:Not buying it the propoganda... (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | about 3 years ago | (#35860204)

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:Not buying it the propoganda... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860318)

It is true that Mahmoud is a lunatic, but it is also true that the militaristic U.S. leadership becoming increasingly unapologetic, brazen, and belligerent ("Yeah, I did do that...so what?") towards its own citizens as well as other nations.
 
Examples at home include "free"-speech zones, warrantless wiretapping and other fishing expeditions and profiling, regular DHS harassment, and the President being able to call hits on American citizens. Examples abroad are much more explicit - a Hellfire missile up their ass.

The mention of Texas evokes the whole "Cowboy" way of doing things, and is not accidental whether or not the attacks actually originated there.

-- Ethanol-fueled, incognito

Re:Not buying it the propoganda... (1)

jekewa (751500) | about 3 years ago | (#35860324)

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:Not buying it the propoganda... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860808)

I think you might be over estimating the brain power of government.

Potential FUD (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#35860078)

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.

Re:Potential FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860280)

I view everything which comes through government channels from Iran as Potential FUD.

How is that different from any other government? Is there some government channel you consider FUD free?

Re:Potential FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860316)

C-SPAN. Watching them make law is akin to watching a butcher make sausage. Once you've seen it, you don't want any more of it.

Actual FUD (1, Flamebait)

jekewa (751500) | about 3 years ago | (#35860308)

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:Actual FUD (1)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | about 3 years ago | (#35860348)

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:Actual FUD (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#35860522)

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:Actual FUD (1, Interesting)

jekewa (751500) | about 3 years ago | (#35860934)

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 his world domination efforts.

Stalin likewise brought the Soviet Union back to prosperity after the depression, after a few failed attempts, and even eventually did a great job of fighting off the back-stabbing, Hitler-led Nazis. He then used the fear of a US-led world domination threat to become the counterpart super-power, including the introduction of the Iron Curtain. Fair enough, the US was no less fear-mongering at the time, with its own Cold War issues. While the US had McCarthism, Stalin had the KGB. At least the way it's been portrayed outside the Iron Curtain, it's a pretty powerful fear-based motivator.

Bush (the younger), whatever you think of his policies, used the attacks on the 11th of September (in part) to build a ferver that has led to full-scale military action against a few questionable countries, rivaling a cost and scale of World War II, and that doesn't seem to be slowing down. All manner of fear and mongering continues out of this one, the least of which is a fear and misunderstanding of most things Islam, Arab, or, well, really anything "over there."

I, on the other hand, am not trying to scare anyone, or blame anything on "the other guy." I'm just pointing out a few guys that have done that; by far, not a comprehensive list, either.

I'm sure it's nothing... (4, Funny)

darien.train (1752510) | about 3 years ago | (#35860082)

People send all sorts of crazy data to Texas all the time. I believe they publish it in their schoolbooks.

Nobody expects CSIS (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 3 years ago | (#35860098)

Another successful black flag operation by the dreaded CSIS - Canadian Security ftw!

Iran just got p0wnd!

Texas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860100)

I guess Mossad needs to add about 7 more proxies.

Full disclosure ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860108)

Let's see...

Grab some highly intelligent and creative engineers and programmers, give them full access to the implemented engineering spec's of a nuclear processing facility, and you'd be amazed the things can be accomplished. Give them time, money, and purpose, and knowing how fallable the average human is, and the Stuxnet scenario was inevitable from an Intelligence standpoint. Keys to the patent office probably also helped.

texas? (1)

demonbug (309515) | about 3 years ago | (#35860154)

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:texas? (1, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 3 years ago | (#35860314)

Wrong in so many ways.

Especially the part where GWB knows how to operate a computer.

Obviously propoganda (4, Insightful)

Taelron (1046946) | about 3 years ago | (#35860190)

So let me get this right, they spent all this time and money to design, develope, and deploy this software. To conceal it and hide its presence, but you now want us to believe that they simply configured it to send data to an IP in Texas? If the stuxnet really did phone home with information, the developers would have programmed it to send to relays in other parts of the world to further hide its origin. If it DID send data to a Texas IP, I'd think any logical thinking person would realize its someone else trying to cast blame on the US... More FUD from Iran...

Re:Obviously propoganda (1)

dreadlord76 (562584) | about 3 years ago | (#35860232)

See, that's exactly what they want you to think. They know you will think that way, therefore, they did it so you wouldn't think that it's them. Of course, you know that they know what you will think that way, so you know not to believe it, and therefore, it is them. Then again......

Re:Obviously propoganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860264)

What in the world could that be!

Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

Re:Obviously propoganda (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#35860282)

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 (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 3 years ago | (#35860216)

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.

Re:Well good luck with that (0)

jDeepbeep (913892) | about 3 years ago | (#35860418)

Russia seems to have no problem selling nuclear supplies to Iran, unless pressured a hell of a lot from the US and friends.

iran child (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860248)

that islamic iran like a child!! visit anamiros http://anamiros.com/

Iranian Idiot (2)

TheJodster (212554) | about 3 years ago | (#35860268)

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:Iranian Idiot (2)

donotlizard (1260586) | about 3 years ago | (#35860432)

I'm sure that Siemens, like Honeywell, Schneider Electric, Allen Bradley, etc., employ programmers, electricians and project managers who integrate control systems of varying scale.

Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert! (2, Funny)

darien.train (1752510) | about 3 years ago | (#35860286)

Not sure what google adverts the rest of you are seeing on this story but mine are hilarious. http://i.imgur.com/U6jCz.png [imgur.com] This is why I don't turn it off (as well as supporting /. ad revenues).

Re:Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860862)

Not sure what google adverts the rest of you are seeing on this story but mine are hilarious.

http://i.imgur.com/U6jCz.png [imgur.com]

This is why I don't turn it off (as well as supporting /. ad revenues).

Yes, I got the same one and a good laugh out of it too.

Re:Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860946)

Throw in ads selling centrifuge diagrams and fake passports and I would believe you have been conscripted by the Google Mossad.

Aliens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860292)

It was actually aliens that did it, hoping to stall Iran in the development of their flying saucer technology.

Probably true. *sigh* (1)

macraig (621737) | about 3 years ago | (#35860294)

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:Probably true. *sigh* (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#35860710)

How do you tell if a politician is lying, his lips are moving. It is impossible to know the answer on this one, because no matter what the truth is the result is the same, The US would deny it whether it is true or if it is a lie, and Iran would blame the US whether the evidence points to it or not, and if Iran found no evidence they would lie and said they did. There is no one that would have access to the evidence on either side that would be both trustworthy and able to admit who he is without his life being destroyed by his political party and then discredited anyway. While I agree it is absolutely in the nature of the US to do this, there are thousands of possible suspects.

The fact is, the US government is a corrupt organization that many many people hate, Iran is also a corrupt organization that many people hate. China, Al-Qaeda, there are dozens of governments and organizations that would want to see the US relations with other countries sink further then it already has. Could the US have done it, absolutely, could they have been framed, just as possible. Honestly as a terrorism attack on the US I think this would be brilliant, why actually waste manpower getting your side killed, when you can dupe 2 parties into fighting eachother.

making crap up? (5, Insightful)

raist21 (68156) | about 3 years ago | (#35860342)

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.

Re:making crap up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860622)

*ding!!* We have a winnah! Give that man a seeegar!

German security consultant confirms Israel connect (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860364)

German control system security consultant confirms Israel connection

the guy who analyzed stuxnet:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon.html

Thank you (5, Insightful)

ALeavitt (636946) | about 3 years ago | (#35860434)

While I can not speak on the behalf of anybody else, as a member of the civilized world allow me to just say thank you Siemens, Mossad, the Pentagon, and anybody else who may have been involved in keeping the world safe by keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of genocidal dictators and oppressive theocracies.

Cry me a river (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860438)

Nobody cares about your cyber misfortunes d00d. Your constant complaining and whining about it makes you and your country look stupid.

Siemens needs to have its day in court for having sold anything to you in the first place.

Why is Iran whining about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860470)

Remember, Stuxnet was ineffective, right? Move on to your next jihad?

Users of the "megaphone desktop tool" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860478)

Please flood this page with your kind of lies. Thank you.

Epic Fail, Iran... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860526)

It's unlikely that someone had Siemens help them do this. It used KNOWN SCADA exploits that were out in the wild- and done in such a sloppy manner that it couldn't BE Mossad, CIA, or NSA that did it.

Stuxnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35860598)

Well, the free world was just lucky because Iran was a country idiot enough to buy SCADA systems based on Microsoft Windows... :)

RA (1)

Is0m0rph (819726) | about 3 years ago | (#35860726)

Rockwell Automation's CEO just saw dollar signs flash before his eyes. Iran should have paid the extra money and went with RA PLCs not that Siemens crap.

The other day... (1)

sdguero (1112795) | about 3 years ago | (#35860792)

I went to the gun store and told them I wanted to buy some ammo so I could kill all their employees. They sold me blanks, I'm totally going to sue.

-Iran

I fear the lawyers with beards. (1)

gavron (1300111) | about 3 years ago | (#35860864)

While astonished that an Iranian spokesman used the word "Israel" instead of some clever euphemism [kuna.net.kw], I'm even more astonished that they are going to court.
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]. Lawyers everywhere, SUIT UP! Iran is going to court.

I hope this gets settled in record time just like SCO v IBM [sco.com].

The only court I'm aware of where venue and jurisdiction for Iran to "air their innocent grievance" are just and proper is currently the one I'm sitting on.
Iran is welcome to kiss it.

E

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...