Beta
×

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 Forced To Replace Centrifuges To Stop Stuxnet

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the going-to-have-to-amputate dept.

Power 204

Trailrunner7 writes "Reports that Iran had recovered from the infection of the Stuxnet worm may have been overblown, as a new report suggests the country is being forced to replace thousands of expensive centrifuges damaged by the worm. The report from the website DEBKAfile cites 'intelligence sources' in claiming that Stuxnet was not purged from Iran's nuclear sites and that the country was never able to return its uranium enrichment efforts to 'normal operation.' Instead, the country has said in recent days that it is installing newer and faster centrifuges at its nuclear plants and intends to speed up the uranium enrichment process, according to the country's foreign ministry."

cancel ×

204 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stuxnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873344)

Stuxnet has caused even more damage than its creators may have thought of...

Re:Stuxnet (4, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873816)

DEBKA is a known source of Israeli military and intelligence disinformation.

Any claim from this source is science fiction.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/08/debka-makes-us-dumber-again.html [informatio...nation.net]

Re:Stuxnet (2)

AB3A (192265) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874114)

Whether it is or is not an intelligence disinformation tool, DEBKA is generally regarded as being very unreliable. I wouldn't trust anything written there unless it were confirmed by at least two other independent sources.

Re:Stuxnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873930)

Actually, quite the opposite. Now they (Iran) are very very angry, and willing to enrich even more uranium, and even faster than before.

Re:Stuxnet (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874328)

intends to speed up the uranium enrichment process

Yeah, excellent job there, guys.

WTF? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873348)

How can replacing thousands of expensive centrifuges be cheaper than replacing the infected computers??!! Dude, WTF?!

Re:WTF? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873384)

Windows has a lower total cost of ownership.

Re:WTF? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873422)

It's cheaper than if you have NFI how to fix the infected computers.

Just sayin'.

Re:WTF? (4, Informative)

CaptainDelaware (1885550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873448)

How can replacing thousands of expensive centrifuges be cheaper than replacing the infected computers??!! Dude, WTF?!

The centrifuges were damaged (due to the worm) and would remain damaged even when you replace/clean the infected computers.

Re:WTF? (5, Informative)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873452)

STUXNET did real physical damage to the centrifuges by playing with their operating speeds.

Re:WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873464)

How can replacing thousands of expensive centrifuges be cheaper than replacing the infected computers??!! Dude, WTF?!

Since the intent of the stuxnet virus was to damage the centrifuges, my guess is that it had probably succeeded in its mission...

Of course just replacing the centrifuges won't do much good if they also don't replace the computer control system that was infected which basically means to be safe, they probably want to buy a whole new system (computers and centrifuges) from a different manufacturer...

Re:WTF? (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873542)

Some of the research says that there is executing code in the embedded controllers of the centrifuges, not just in the computers that control them at a high level. I'm not sure that they can be certain that the infected centrifuges themselves won't cause a reinfection of other systems. They may need to kill the patient to cure the disease.

easy: quarantine (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874464)

Do not hook up centrifuges that are suspected of ever having been infected to the new centrifuges, the networks the new centrifugres are hooked up to, or any equipment that in any way touches the new centrifuges.

Re:WTF? (1)

tommy2tone (2357022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874568)

How can replacing thousands of expensive centrifuges be cheaper than replacing the infected computers??!! Dude, WTF?!

Because the worm was designed to destroy the centrifuges. The worm fed signals to the centrifuges that made them operate beyond their operating capabilities, effectively destroying them

Nuclear Iran. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873368)

Iran believes they need nuclear weapons to be taken seriously. Why? Because they have seen that when a country has nuclear capability no one, especially the US, fucks with them.

The World is going to have to pay for generations the complete and utter fucked up foreign US policy - even when we're a broke run down ex-Super Power.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (4, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873438)

Really, we aren't performing drone strikes, incursions, and firefights with Pakistan's border patrols on a daily basis? No, nuclear weapons alone does not make you immune from US military involvement, having a stable and friendly government is the only way to partially insure that.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (3, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873478)

having a pro-US dictatorship is the only way to partially insure that.

FTFY.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873710)

That's a sufficient (but not necessary) condition to having a "friendly" government, if we make the reasonable assumption that when afidel said friendly he meant friendly to the US.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873724)

Man. Then that really sucks. Because Iran used to be a pro-US dictatorship. WTF do we do now?

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873994)

Dude, it hasn't been that since the very early 70s.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (2)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874368)

Where "very early 70's" means before 1979. A strange definition of 'very early'.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (2)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874476)

having a pro-US dictatorship is the only way to partially insure that.
Tell that to Mubarak

Re:Nuclear Iran. (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874502)

If your choice is between a pro-US Dictatorship, and a dictatorship that is anti-US, which would you choose?

Sometimes the world doesn't give you fluffy bunny rabbits, sometimes it is rattlesnakes it gives you.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873526)

Really, we aren't performing drone strikes, incursions, and firefights with Pakistan's border patrols on a daily basis? No, nuclear weapons alone does not make you immune from US military involvement, having a stable and friendly government is the only way to partially insure that.

With regards to Pakistan, there's a quasi "cooperation" with their government with regards to those incursions - read we were bribing with billions in foreign aid so therefore, they weren't saying too much about it.Sure, there are some official protests, but they're political whores.

But anyway, explain that to Iran. And also explain to them the other reasons why N. Korea pulls so much shit and yet,as far as I know, are not being attacked with drones and incursions into their territories?

Re:Nuclear Iran. (2)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873592)

Because of China's patronage. It's got jack-shit to do with DPRK's purported nuclear weapons. IOW, the GP is spot-on.

Not just China's patronage (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874506)

N. Korea basically has a hostage situtation, it has a large enough conventional military force to do real, significant, and lasting damage to S. Korea quickly enough that the US could only retaliate in kind rather than to halt the assault.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873552)

Really, we aren't performing drone strikes, incursions, and firefights with Pakistan's border patrols on a daily basis?

No, I can assure you that if U.S. forces and the Pakistani military were waging war against each other, then we would hear about it. The U.S. drone strikes etc. are being carried out with the permission and cooperation of the Pakistani military and political ruling class. Around 4,000 Pakistani security members have been killed [wikipedia.org] by local hostiles in the last decade, not by the U.S..

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873980)

Tell that to Qaddafi! He got the message from the Iraq war. Don't support terrorism against the USA or its allies, and control your people and territories well enough they are not used for terrorism against the USA or its allies, or else you might get regime changed and that won't be fun. Qaddafi's government was stable and friendly towards us.

Know what we attacked him ANYWAY! Why I have no idea, especially because we don't know who the rebels are or if they will be a better partner in the future. Qaddafi has been playing ball, our actions in Libya make our foreign policy look completely schizophrenic. The sadly "we" can't be trusted. Oh I won't entertain the argument we are there for humanitarian reasons, if that were the case we'd have been in Darfur, the DRC, and Tibet for years before Libya happened. The kind of person who says we are in Libya for humanitarian reasons is either ignorant and deeply stupid, or the sort of person whose ideas are to blame for most of the suffering in the world.

The only way to be "safe" from our horrible foreign policy is to be major supplier of oil to us, or a major supplier of cheap consumer goods. You don't even have to be friendly.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874298)

Tell that to Qaddafi!

Qaddafi has been a pain in the ass to the US for a very long time now. An overthrow of Qaddafi does two things. One, it likely brings in better players and two, buys good will from the Muslim world.

Right now, one of THE biggest weapons extremists have in their bag of weapons is misinformation, propaganda, and flat out lies; whereby the US (and the West) is generally the scapegoat for everything. Thusly, which is why, "America is Satan", is farted daily. Literally, they still recruit by claiming the Crusades are still on and the US is leading the Christian charge. This is why fucktard Christians who insist on stupidly claiming this is a religious war, need to be shot in the head. It literally would make the world a better place. All it does is empower the terrorists while spreading Islamic propaganda and hate. Of course, that complete ignores that you would have to be a complete fucking idiot to believe this is a two sided religion war - but Christians, just like Islam, have plenty of complete fucking idiots to spare.

Long story short, overthrowing Qaddafi will literally weaken a lot of propaganda which originates from terrorists and scapegoating regimes.

"We need you to fight the Crusade against the Great Satan!"

"Didn't they just help millions of Muslims?"

And of course, it makes it harder for extreme regimes to continue their scapegoating policies and will help force them to deal with their local issues rather than continue the same old lies and propaganda.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874514)

"Didn't they just help millions of Muslims?"

It will be an amazing stroke of luck if that is the take away. Qaddafi is not seen as an enemy of Islam thought most of the Muslim world. Libya is a pretty secular place as far as the middle east goes. The Rebels may be less secular than the pro-Qaddafi Libyians but I really don't think this fight is being seen as jihad.

I'd be quite surprised if this buys us much good will outside Libya, at all.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874532)

"One, it likely brings in better players"

What is the basis for your optimism? Qaddafi is an ass, that is for sure, and so was the Shaw of Iran, and look how taking him out helped US Iranian relations.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874650)

That reply squarely implies YOU'VE been buying the media propaganda. You honestly think for a second, contrary to the media propaganda, organizations such as the CIA don't know who they are supporting? The US would NEVER commit sizable forces to support their enemy. And it sure as hell wouldn't do it on a question mark; as was ignorantly depicted in media reports. If they didn't know who they were supporting, at best, you'd see a very limited number of air strikes from US/NATO forces. The fact NATO was so willing to jump on board immediately tells you, contrary to any lies you've been fed from US media conglomerates, both the US and NATO see a bigger picture here and none see it as supporting someone worse than Qaddafi.

You've been played a willing fool. Here's a hint, if its been reported by mainstream US media, chances are very high, at some some portion of it is a complete lie. Verify, verify, verify. Here's another hint, outside of the US media conglomerates, no one else is playing up the, "Who the fuck are they", card. That again does wonders to validate they are lying to you.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36874616)

Not only did Qaddafi change from being hostile to the U.S. after Reagan's strikes in the 1980s, but after giving up on being a greater military power in the region the relationship could almost be described as amicable after the first Gulf War involving Iraq. As long as Libya kept things to Libya, it seemed as if things were no-harm no-foul.

So what happened? I think it has to do with the decision not to index their oil to the dollar anymore. Obviously by not being militarily aggressive outside his own country, it's not caused by a huge dick-waving contest like what Saddam engaged in. I still wouldn't say that everything was "peachy" in Libya (still some limits on speech and what you could do politically - not exactly free in the democratic sense), but compared to other northern African countries Libya actually comes out as being one of the progressive ones. They were also doing other things to influence the region economically, which might have made it harder for western interests to pull their weight as easily when it comes to exploiting resources.

Think about it for a moment. If somebody made northern Africa into a stable economic block, what would that do for new oil exploration projects, cheap human labor, and things like diamonds and mining? Not to mention mercenary services and arms sales...

Libya wasn't seen as taking over in an obviously hostile way, but they definitely started "meddling" where other interests are involved. Apparently it seems some aren't allowed to play the game under the same rules in the economic sense either.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

ashvagan (885082) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874028)

Just to clarify, there is no incursion and fighting in Pakistan with border patrols. The Pakistani government has allowed these drone strikes to be conducted on its own citizen for the "cool" amount of money they get from US. Keeps all parties happy, except the Pakistani people themselves. As far as keeping yourself immune from US government's involvement is concerned, it's better for a country to be neutral rather than be ally or against US, because either way, it turns out bad for the country.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874128)

Really, we aren't performing drone strikes, incursions, and firefights with Pakistan's border patrols on a daily basis? No, nuclear weapons alone does not make you immune from US military involvement, having a stable and friendly government is the only way to partially insure that.

Extremely bad example. The US is basically propping up the entire Pakistani government. The US has more or less free reign to whatever its wants in Pakistani so long as the government can freely denounce it on TV and radio. Realistically, Pakistan needs to be nuked to ensure all of their nukes are destroyed. If the US backed government falls, chances are very high a terrorist nuke will originate from Pakistan. Pragmatically, nuking Pakistan isn't an option though realistically, its likely the best option to ensure the minimal number of innocent (as in peace loving, non-extremists) people actually get nuked.

Basically, the Pakistani government is pro-US because they are paid by the US to be so. The people, on the other hand, are largely ignorant, uninformed people, who tend to have extremists leanings. This is why coordinated efforts with Pakistan have a habit of going to shit - because they have extremists terrorists everywhere, throughout their ranks. Which is exactly why should the US stop bribing their government and paying for weapons, things will go to shit really fast there.

The simple fact is, the Pakistani government isn't threatened by the US, therefore, nukes play zero in the relationship. If the current government falls, expect the policy to instantly change. In a nutshell, the current government can not exist without US support.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874756)

having a stable and friendly government is the only way to partially insure that.

- you have to specify what it is that you mean by 'friendly' and 'stable', because whatever those 2 terms mean, they cannot mean 'democratic' and 'elected' [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Nuclear Iran. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873506)

WHO is selling them these new centrifuges?

Re:Nuclear Iran. (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873560)

Who sells guns to drug dealers who can't pass a background check? Straw purchasers. People who look legit, then resell them.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874034)

Straw purchasers, eh? You mean Obama administration ATF and DEA agents?

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874106)

Sometimes yes, regrettably. But usually it's just the drug dealer's new girlfriend.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873606)

Well, Russia has been a sort-of ally of Iran since the Islamic revolution went anti-American.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (2)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873670)

WHO is selling them these new centrifuges?

Iran has manufacturing capabilities to build the centrifuges. The parts and materials are imported from Chinese, Russian and Western companies - but these are dual use parts and materials, and the Iranian government use front companies, so it is not so obvious what is going on. The U.S. does have sanctions against several Iranian and Chinese companies [reuters.com] for supplying materials.

You and your fevered conspiracy theories (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873682)

I know that WHO seems like a evil organization, especially with all this "big med are evil and they control everything" attitude here on /. but seriously, why would WHO get into a risky business like that? There's enough money in drugs as it is.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873852)

WHO is selling them these new centrifuges?

Siemens

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874394)

Dear UAC (uninformed AC),
Siemens makes the PLCs, not the centrifuges.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873508)

So you mean having your leaders killed but then fighting an insurgent war for almost 10 years wasting 100s of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. If Iran were serious about wanting to destroy the Great Satan TM this sounds like one of the better approaches.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873734)

So you mean having your leaders killed but then fighting an insurgent war for almost 10 years wasting 100s of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. If Iran were serious about wanting to destroy the Great Satan TM this sounds like one of the better approaches.

Note that Iran lost an admitted 188000 dead (and an estimated 500K-1M dead) during their almost-eight-year-long war with Iraq.

We've lost a total of just over 6000 fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan over a similar period.

Somehow, I don't think that Iran would see us losing 1/30th the number of men they lost fighting Iraq (which they couldn't defeat, but we did - twice) as a "better approach".

And this not even counting population disparities. They have 1/4 our population, and lost 30 (low end) to 160 (high end) times as many people as we did fighting in Iraq....

Re:Nuclear Iran. (3, Insightful)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873530)

Because they have seen that when a country has nuclear capability no one, especially the US, fucks with them.

Yea, we would definitely never ever fuck with Russia even a little bit in the entire history of it having nuclear weapons, and certainly not Pakistan since they're nuclear armed. Well at least we wouldn't bomb them. No? We're doing that? Oh. Well, maybe just a few missiles, but we would certainly never send any troops into their territory without permission and kill- oh? oh.....wait, never mind, what are we saying again?

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873812)

Yes, the US messes with nuclear-armed nations, but with the promise to let the dictators stay in power. Having nuclear weapons saves the dictators from the fate of Saddam Hussein. Nuclear weapons are not much help for democratic leaders who happen to be anti-US.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (4, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873890)

no, what you're describing is not "Fucking with them".

Fucking with them would be, launching airstrikes and cruise missiles on Pakistani capital trying to kill the leaders of the Pakistani government. Which is precisely what Obama/Hillary is doing in Libya.

Kaddafi has no nukes, so Obama is free to bomb Libya.

Pakistan has nukes, so he can't do that even if they suddenly decide today they hate the US and announce an alliance with Al Qaeda and declare jihad.

Best thing to do would've been for USA to mind its own fucking business and not get involved in the territorial disputes and internal politics of the Middle East. Btw this isn't an Obama bashing session, Dubya was three times worse than him, and actually it goes all the way back to Churchill and FDR, when they decided to play Emperor and carve out new nation-states on a whim.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874586)

and actually it goes all the way back to Churchill and FDR, when they decided to play Emperor and carve out new nation-states on a whim.

It should be noted that, for the most part, the "carving out new nation-states on a whim" was done post WW1 by the British Foreign Minister (Winston Churchill, oddly enough).

There was also a bit of this sort of thing post WW-2, but FDR was dead then, and Churchill was kicked out of office as soon as the War ended, so it's probably his successor you should be blaming.

It isn't because of nukes (2)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874690)

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal most likely consists of warheads with yields comparable to Fat Man and Little Boy. It's delivery systems are most likely limited to those that can deliver these warheads to their immediate neighbors. The intention of the arsenal isn't to deter a super-power that sits on the other side of the world but to deter India.

The US could bomb Pakistan at will and not face any consequences it does not already face. What's Pakistan going to do, promulgate information on how to build nuclear warheads to foes of the US [wikipedia.org] ? Or maybe they might fund beligerents who are actively in state of war against the US [bbc.co.uk] ?

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873984)

It's because Pakistan has nuclear weapons that we continue to pay bribe money to them. We don't trust Pakistan. They're our enemy. Yet we know a few were protecting Bin Laden; to the point of tipping him off should we mention to them well in advance of the mission. Worse yet, if we don't keep supplying them money, the entire regime could collapse sending control of their nuclear weapons in the hands of.... Well, lets just say it would be a situation that would go from bad to worse.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873594)

The UK has nuclear capability, and yet this President enjoys disrespecting them.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873718)

Because Israel has them.

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873880)

logically valid statement: "i am against iran and the usa having nukes, because nukes are the road to hell"

trollish tribal statement: "if the usa has nukes, then the despotism of north korea, the theocracy of iran, and my kid's boy scout troop all deserve nuclear weapon's too"

Re:Nuclear Iran. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36874390)

Iran believes they need nuclear weapons to be taken seriously.

[citation needed]

Re:Nuclear Iran. (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874540)

Iran wants nukes so they can threaten Israel first and foremost, and after that, various Arab states in the region. There's really nothing more to it than that.

The real concern, though, is whether hard-line Hezbollah-supporting elements will hand over an Iranian nuke to terrorists for actual use in Israel. And that's why you'll eventually see Israeli military action in Iran, whether or not the US gives their blessing.

It's good to read (0)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873372)

a heartwarming story about the good that viruses do, instead of the constant bad press...

Re:It's good to read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873454)

The good depends on the point of view. If they destroy ower power grid using some smart worm, it will be "good" from their point of view.

Re:It's good to read (0)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873570)

I'll take that over a nuke going off in the harbor outside NYC.

not credible (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873398)

DEBKAfile is not a credible source of news. I remember in Gulf War 2 when they were reporting on the imminent launch of WMD gas my Saddam on US forces. This should not be on slashdot.

Re:not credible (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873462)

Since when has Slashdot ever cared about the credibility and accuracy of the article sources? Slashdot routinely posts FUD articles all the time.

Re:not credible (1, Offtopic)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873474)

They're still more credible than the Iranian government propaganda service.

Re:not credible (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873510)

That's not really setting a high bar.

Re:not credible (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873806)

Yea, they're only slightly above Fox News. Not exactly something to be proud of.

Re:not credible (0)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873856)

I've heard that they're developing "Fuxnet". It'll hack into Iranian Government Phone Systems.

Time for StuxNet 2.0! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873450)

I'd like to know how Siemens will prevent future infections from using the same attack vector. (So would the Mossad, no doubt :)

Re:Time for StuxNet 2.0! (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873588)

I'm picturing some Israeli air-force tech with a Sharpie writing "StuxNet 2.0" on a hardened spike as it gets loaded onto an aircraft...

Re:Time for StuxNet 2.0! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36874006)

Considering the fact that the Iranians aren't stupid, whatever your jingoism tells you, and that they have seen how the Israelis and the US operates from a pretty close range, I suspect they know a fair bit about how to set up AAA and SAMs effectively. I would also guess that's a significant factor in why Israel haven't done what you're suggesting already.

Re:Time for StuxNet 2.0! (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874316)

Jingoism aside, I agree with you. And I think they were responsible for Stuxnet, which was a better option than a strike. But if Iran gets within a resonable timespan of developing a viable weapon, expect them to attack. They will percieve the risk associated with inaction as intollerable, and feel compelled to act.

Iran is not the only victim of attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873472)

Do you really believe Iran is the only country that have had attacks carried out successfully against military / nuclear programs? Imagine how many times your own country has been hit. Iran were only less skilled at censorship and keeping the lid on. Your country was better at it.

Re:Iran is not the only victim of attack (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873612)

Iran were only less skilled at censorship and keeping the lid on. Your country was better at it.

WTF? There's this site called Wikileaks... you may have heard of it...

Grain of salt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873476)

Take this with a grain of salt. DEBKAfile is not the most reliable of sources. They tend to post without vetting.

Debka is not reliable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873494)

Vague unsourced rumours from Debkafile should not be showing up on slashdot. Debka is meant to be read for fun, not for actual news.

Re:Debka is not reliable (1, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873628)

Vague unsourced rumours from Debkafile should not be showing up on slashdot. Debka is meant to be read for fun, not for actual news.

Slashdot is meant to be read for fun, not actual news. Good fit.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873496)

So we set the Iranian nuclear program back a few years and really pissed them off! The US would consider an attack of this type an act of war....

I'm sure the Iranians will even less likely to 'negotiate' now.

Re:Great! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873700)

So you're taking the Iranians' word that the virus they caught came from the US.

Re:Great! (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874162)

And the Iranians do not consider this an act of war?

Score one for someone. (2)

Lance Dearnis (1184983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873514)

Sounds fun as hell, and pretty probable too, TBH. Number one is hat Stuxnet got in there -before-; nothing keeps it from being re-inserted, possibly with modifications to avoid re-detection. Secondly is - think back to your corporate IT department and how often they make all their fixes right. They screw up sometimes, don't they?

Trust me, the Iranian government's a lot worse. They've got less expertise, less experience, less skills, and a language barrier to deal with most the time. I'd consider it a safe bet that they could've screwed up the cleanup, especially since they also tend to go cheap compared to other militaries (Look at rifles for a basic example here).

Either way, whoever's doing Stuxnet, good job here. I've got more faith in this then I do our diplomat's efforts for the reasons mentioned before - we bend over backwards for anyone who DOES have nukes and invade people who give 'em up. Doesn't take much IQ to see that throwing out your weapons program is a boneheaded idea if you're not going to take that 500 million bribe straightaway and retire before you get bit in the ass.

Re:Score one for someone. (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873720)

I'd consider it a safe bet that they could've screwed up the cleanup, especially since they also tend to go cheap compared to other militaries (Look at rifles for a basic example here)

I think they have the biggest army in Middle East. They learned not to trust others and make sure that they can produce arms themselves. G3 and MG3 are not cheap. AK and Chinese copies might be cheap, but when you have bigger army to supply with arms, you go with Soviet method and use mass produced AKs instead of accurate M-16s.

Re:Score one for someone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873932)

Iran mainly fields locally produced G3 rifles. They have also developed their own modern rifle that is as advanced as anything else out there:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/iran/khaybar-kh2002-e.html

Re:Score one for someone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873726)

Yea- I'm not convinced that surrendering the nukes is a bright idea either. Saddam wasn't wrong in his approach to maintaining power even if it did not succeed at keeping himself in power and alive indefinitely. He did manage to keep us out for a long long long time. I have to wonder if these trade barriers we put up have more to do with weakening the governments that we're planning to invade. If you think about it a long drawn out war can be cheaper I'd bet than simply heading in and taking out an undesirable government.

.5 billion chosen ones expecting contention (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873562)

even more cement will save them from themselves/their dark deeds?

should it not be considered that the domestic threats to all of us/our
freedoms be intervened on/removed, so we wouldn't be compelled to hide our
sentiments, &/or the truth, about ANYTHING, including the origins of the
hymenology council, & their sacred mission? with nothing left to hide,
there'd be room for so much more genuine quantifiable human progress?

you call this 'weather'? much of our land masses/world are going under
water, or burning up, as we fail to consider anything at all that really
matters, as we've been instructed that we must maintain our silence (our
last valid right?), to continue our 'safety' from... mounting terror.

meanwhile, back at the raunch; there are exceptions? the unmentionable
sociopath weapons peddlers are thriving in these times of worldwide
sufferance? the royals? our self appointed murderous neogod rulers? all
better than ok, thank..... us. their stipends/egos/disguises are secure,
so we'll all be ok/not killed by mistaken changes in the MANufactured
'weather', or being one of the unchosen 'too many' of us, etc...?

truth telling & disarming are the only mathematically & spiritually
correct options. read the teepeeleaks etchings. see you there?
thanks for your increasing awareness?

diaperleaks group worldwide

Consider the source (5, Informative)

andy1307 (656570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873574)

DEBKA is NOT a reliable source. It's Israeli disinformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debka.com [wikipedia.org]

Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics," adding that Debka had partnered with the right-wing news site WorldNetDaily for a weekly subscription product.[3] Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[4]

Re:Consider the source (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873912)

It's a site that often publishes rumors and other poorly-sourced information. That's not the same as disinformation.

Re:Consider the source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36874734)

Exactly.

Disinformation is not the same as rumors.

Debka, although highly entertaining and subscribing to a similar political slant as I have, is not reliable. Sorry.

Re:Consider the source (3, Insightful)

swilde23 (874551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873964)

Not to antagonize here, but I am amused by someone saying "consider the source" linking to wikipedia to prove their point. (I don't necessarily doubt that Debka is "unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics"... it's just the principle.)

Re:Consider the source (1)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874730)

I don't think Wikipedia is unreliable in the same way that Debka or the Weekly World News is unreliable (certainly some of its articles are, but most are not). I think the problem with using Wikipedia as a cite is that it's inherently malleable.

I can provide a perfectly correct link to some massively cross-referenceed supporting document on wikipedia, and tomorrow that same link might point to a picture of Homer Simpson picking his nose. There's no way to be sure.

Re:Consider the source (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36874024)

I cannot begin to describe how un-reliable Debka file is. It's not even disinformation, it's just a mid aged guy with a lap top sitting in his provincial home in Israel, making up stories. For some reason, foreign press often quotes it, but everyone in Israel knows it's BS.

Stuxnet 2 (1)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873690)

Stuxnet 2 is coming!

Re:Stuxnet 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873898)

No need. The new centrifuges will natively run anti-Iranian software.

DEBKA = junk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873706)

Come on slashdot, debka is as realible as jeff rense.

Dear IRan... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873738)

Dont use industrial machines that run Windows....

Just saying.....

Re:Dear IRan... (1)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873924)

They don't, the computers used to configure the controllers do. This is a standard Siemens system they are using, it's not just Iran.

Yay!?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36874138)

"Stuxnet was not purged from Iran's nuclear sites... in recent days that it is installing newer and faster centrifuges at its nuclear plants and intends to speed up the uranium enrichment process, according to the country's foreign ministry."

So...
now they are installing newer and faster centrifuges to get the job done faster and better... talk about backfire
Yay!?

You're all missing the point (3, Insightful)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874264)

It's an editorial, for crying out loud. Of course it's biased.

The real news is that Iran is scrapping somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 centrifuges and replacing them with "faster" and "improved" ones. They supposedly announced this in a press conference, so I presume this can be independently verified apart from DEBKA's claim?

The rest of the article is conjecture, so feel free to come up with a better theory of why Iran is rebuilding their enrichment program from scratch.

HA HA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36874392)

Nelson: HA HA!

Maybe they could ask Aperture Labs for help. (1)

Bonteaux-le-Kun (1360207) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874408)

They have these awesome enrichment centers :) (And who needs stuxnet when you've got GlaDOS?)

Totally Fixable (3, Interesting)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36874628)

Stuxnet is a really complex and well thought out windows worm but it's not magic and it can be beaten. Abusing holes in windows isn't some new thing that stuxnet invented.

Dealing with windows worms isn't nearly as complex as creating them.

Easy clean up process:
1) Disconnect affected windows machines from your network.
2) Overwrite the disks on these machines with zeros at least once.
3) Physically break the USB, firewire, sound, floppy connectors, extra disk connectors, serial ports, parallel ports on the motherboard of these computers. Break them in such a way they can't be fixed without significant effort.
4) Reinstall windows from clean CDs. Do not connect the machine to any network.
5) Reinstall SCADA software from clean CDs. Do not connect the machine to any network.
6) Setup one OpenBSD filtering bridge per SCADA control system to filter traffic to and from your new control machine and only allow traffic you have to. That means SCADA control traffic only. No windows update, no anti-virus updates, no domain authentications, no STP, and if possible not even ARP. Test with tcpdump and if 1 single network packet you don't fully understand gets though start again from step 1.

Done.

BTW I'm not a US citizen, a US visa holder, or in US controlled territory. I suspect that any US citizen or anyone in US controlled territory who assists Iran in any way is committing a criminal act. US export laws.. land of the free.. my arse.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?