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's Oil Industry Hit By Cyber Attacks

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the causing-industrial-accidents-for-fun-and-profit dept.

Security 115

wiredmikey writes "Iran disconnected computer systems at a number of its oil facilities in response to a cyber attack that hit multiple industry targets during the weekend. A source at the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) reportedly told Reuters that a virus was detected inside the control systems of Kharg Island oil terminal, which handles the majority of Iran's crude oil exports. In addition, computer systems at Iran's Oil Ministry and its national oil company were hit. There has been no word on the details of the malware found, but computer systems controlling several of Iran's oil facilities were disconnected from the Internet as a precaution. Oil Ministry spokesman Ali Reza Nikzad-Rahbar told Mehr News Agency on Monday that the attack had not caused significant damage and the worm had been detected before it could infect systems."

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

I bet the Jews did this (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39779569)

I hate to point fingers, but if I were to point them, they'd be straight at Tel Aviv.

Re:I bet the Jews did this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780045)

anti-zionism != antisemitism in most cases.

this is NOT one of those cases.

Re:I bet the Jews did this (4, Insightful)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780193)

Come on: There are a plethora of cases where "anti Zionism" (why can't we just call it criticism of a state actor?) does not = antisemitism. Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous.

Re:I bet the Jews did this (1)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 2 years ago | (#39787277)

And anyway that word is completely mis-used to denote bigotry against jewish people when in fact semite != jew:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semite [merriam-webster.com]

Conflict to do with oil is likely caused by the US (1, Interesting)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780405)

I think the USA is the more likely culprit. Iran created an oil bourse to trade oil in non-US dollars [wikipedia.org] a few years ago (the same time all those undersea internet trunk lines were "coincidentally" damaged in the Persian Gulf [wikipedia.org] ). The US needs to keep people trading oil in their currency at all costs, or the value of the US dollar will drastically drop and hyper-inflation will destroy the economy.

Remember what happened to Iraq when they switched to trading oil from US dollars to the Euro in November 2000: the US invaded under false pretenses and forced Iraq to immediately switch oil trading back to US dollars [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I bet the Jews did this (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780443)

Better point them at the easygoing admins, who connected the business/mission critical network of PCs to Internet.

Especially now, when there are carpload of solutions for not having everything connected to the same network and yet being able to access the Internet.

Would've been better to say "I bet Israel did this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39781673)

so your post wouldn't be marked 'troll'

how long? (-1)

ozduo (2043408) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779577)

before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3

Re:how long? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39779595)

11 years ago.

Re:how long? (5, Informative)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779657)

11 years ago.

I suppose you're implicating Iran in the 9/11 attacks, though it's hard to imagine anyone could be so ignorant.

Most of the participants came from "friendly" countries.

Re:how long? (3, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779853)

"Most of the participants came from "friendly" countries." Saudi Arabia is only "friendly" if you are an oil company. It certainly isn't friendly if you are a woman or a Jew. It's funny how billions of dollars in oil can make you a friend no matter how hostile you are.

Re:how long? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39779873)

Most of the participants came from "friendly" countries.

"Most of the participants came from "friendly" countries." Saudi Arabia is only "friendly" if you are an oil company. It certainly isn't friendly if you are a woman or a Jew. It's funny how billions of dollars in oil can make you a friend no matter how hostile you are.

I'm pretty sure that is why he put quotation marks around the word "friendly" to indicate ironic intent.

Re:how long? (4, Informative)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780323)

Saudi Arabia is only "friendly" if you are an oil company.

Then I guess America is the biggest [biyokulule.com] fucking [hermes-press.com] oil company [xinhuanet.com] in the world.

Another could say (2)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780537)

That Israel isn't too friendly with minorities found within its borders these days either. The whole region is full of extremists.

Re:Another could say (4, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39781061)

It probably doesn't help that Israel built a giant fucking wall [wikipedia.org] around the entire West Bank, effectively creating a Palestinian ghetto. I guess they learned something from the Nazi's after all.

Re:Another could say (1)

Imbrondir (2367812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39782607)

A sad action indeed. However the numbers are clear that terrorist attacks went very down afterwards.

Re:Another could say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39782897)

yup. getting rid of the kikes helped germany the same way.

I know you're blowing shit out your ass, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39783021)

Citation needed

Re:Another could say (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784663)

However the numbers are clear that terrorist attacks went very down afterwards.

1. Correlation != causation.
2. Attacking those who have stolen and occupied your land are not "terrorist attacks".

You really want to talk about terrorism in the area, you have to first and foremost talk about the IDF. Like bombing Gaza into the stone age when your own military admits that Hamas had stopped firing rockets before Israel broke the cease fire, or how the IDF ordered civilians to take shelter inside a school, and then promptly bombed the school.

Re:Another could say (1)

Imbrondir (2367812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39787773)

Any attacks aiming purely for civilian targets are terrorists in my book. Whether the Judean desert is stolen and occupied is IMHO a big grey area which I don't want to discuss

As for your accusation of the IDF terrorism, I'll have to go for a [Citation needed]. What could the IDF even gain from just massacring a school with no military target as you suggest?

Re:Another could say (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39788581)

Any attacks aiming purely for civilian targets are terrorists in my book.

Civilians living on land that was stolen from you. Civilians who, thanks to Israel's laws on compulsory military service, are either 1) active duty soldiers defending the occupation 2) future active duty soldiers defending the occupation 3) reservists who can be called back into service to defend the occupation.

And even, then, there is no comparison in the levels of civilian-killing even if you want to call it terrorism. Israelis stand a higher chance of being murdered by another Israeli than dying in a "terrorist attack". You have a higher chance of being killed by a bus colliding with your car in an accident (not car accidents overall, but accidents involving buses) than in being killed by a Quassam rocket [imageshack.us] .

Whether the Judean desert is stolen and occupied is IMHO a big grey area which I don't want to discuss

Any particular reason why? The U.N. partition plan that the Palestinians (rightfully) rejected would have given the majority of the land to a minority of the population. The vast majority of whom were not people to the area, but immigrants. [wikipedia.org] Furthermore, blockades are an act of war according to Israel [wikipedia.org] . Meaning that according to Israeli logic, attacks on Israel in response to the far more draconian blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified.

As for your accusation of the IDF terrorism, I'll have to go for a [Citation needed].

Sure [aljazeera.com] thing [reuters.com] . This isn't the most ironclad example as both the attacks (did shelling hit the building directly or indirectly?) and the death tolls are heavily disputed. So I'll talk more about things that are not in dispute:

What could the IDF even gain from just massacring a school with no military target as you suggest?

What would the IDF have to gain from full scale bombardment and invasion when even the IDF admits [blogspot.com] that Hamas had stopped firing rockets and that Quassam rockets are more of a psycological [ynetnews.com] than military threat?

And furthermore, if terrorism is the bane of Israel's existence, then why has the current prime minister celebrated the 60th anniversary [wikipedia.org] of an Irgun (Zionist terrorist group) attack on a hotel used by the British as a headquarters before Israel's "independence"? How about the nuclear scientists assassinated in Iran, undoubtedly carried out or funded by Mossad?

Re:Another could say (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39783147)

No, they picked this up all by themselves. Jericho [about.com] , one of the oldest tells in the Middle East has been a fortress for some 8000 years:

Jericho's reputation in the bible has a strong association with towers and walls--and with good reason. The first walls at Jericho were built during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period, indicating that violence and conflict were important parts of Jericho's history for a very long time.

Nothing new. Same 'ol hairless apes chomping on each other.

Re:Another could say (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39783983)

The fence is only in small part built up as a wall, and is mostly just a barbed wire line. Even so, it has served to drastically decrease the number of terror attacks from the WB.

Besides this, there are a few differences between the ghettos of WWII and the west bank.

Wrong on two accounts :) (3, Insightful)

tinkerton (199273) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779863)

I don't see how pp would be implicating that. And your imagination is seriously lacking. A majority of Americans at some point believed Saddam was behind 9/11, and in the military it was over 80%.

The claims about Iran aiding Al Qaedy aren't very successful.. On the other hand currently 71% of americans think Iran already has nuclear weapons (CNN nationwide poll, quality of sampling not known). While at the same time the NYTimes has stopped claiming that the west suspects Iran is working on a bomb, as a result of intelligence services speaking out loud enough. The claim has been quietly modified to "Iran might want to use their civilian program to help them to make a bomb later on".

Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779909)

I'm no expert on nuclear engineering, but I gather that if you have a full nuclear power program it isn't that hard to make a bomb. The enrichment capability is exactly the same equipment, you just have to keep cycling until you reach weapons-grade. Once you've got the uranium to weapons-grade, a basic gun-type nuclear device is so simple any metalworking shop could make it with ease. It's the enrichment that's the big, expensive, highly-skilled part.

Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (3, Interesting)

tinkerton (199273) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779989)

Maybe you're overstating things a bit but I roughly agree, and it's called nuclear capability. Iran is fully aware of the military capability of a civilian program, and this is part of their deterrence strategy. This is El Baradei's viewpoint and US and Israeli intelligence agrees with it. It is also a legitimate strategy.

An agreement with Iran would involve keeping the development time to a full bomb as long as possible and the safeguards as thorough as possible. The real sticking point lies elsewhere: normalization of relations with Iran will make them a regional player. Unfortunately that's happening anyway so the question for the US is whether they want to be part of it or not.

Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (1)

rocket rancher (447670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39781757)

Maybe you're overstating things a bit but I roughly agree, and it's called nuclear capability. Iran is fully aware of the military capability of a civilian program, and this is part of their deterrence strategy. This is El Baradei's viewpoint and US and Israeli intelligence agrees with it. It is also a legitimate strategy.

An agreement with Iran would involve keeping the development time to a full bomb as long as possible and the safeguards as thorough as possible. The real sticking point lies elsewhere: normalization of relations with Iran will make them a regional player. Unfortunately that's happening anyway so the question for the US is whether they want to be part of it or not.

Hmmm. I'm thinking Iran will *never* be allowed to become a regional player as long as the mullahs are in charge, because another group of religious zealots with nuclear capability is the last thing this planet needs. If economic and political measures fail to dislodge the mullahs in Iran, then military action to force a regime change will be the logical next step. Frankly, the US is *already* prepared to take that step. The Obama administration has made it abundantly clear, though, that no direct military action in Iran is possible until the US election cycle is over, which has created an unprecedented rift in US-Israel relations. That is the sticking point -- Israel wants war now; the US says wait at least until the elections are over. I'm thinking the US sanctioned this attack to mollify the hardliners in the Knesset and buy some time for the economic and political measures to work.

Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (3, Informative)

Elrond, Duke of URL (2657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780291)

You're definitely far overstating the issue here...

A real civilian nuclear program simply cannot be used to create a bomb as-is. All of that complex and expensive technology needed to enrich uranium is not needed for regular reactor fuel. And, beyond that, actually building the bomb once you have the materials is definitely not "so simple" a task as you seem to think. The theory of how a "gun-type" bomb works might be, relatively speaking, simple, but the implementation of that theory is far from it. It takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of skill. If you actually want your bomb to detonate instead of just blow up like a pipe bomb, you need to carefully engineer the thing with very tight tolerances.

The real trouble and the real danger is that you can convert a civilian nuclear program or build upon it and create the tools and facilities needed for a military nuclear program. I really don't know what sort of program Iran might have or how far along it could be. Certainly, the Israelis seem to think it is real and very active. Proper monitoring could, conceivably, keep the civilian program in check and make sure it doesn't get used improperly. But, if Iran is hell bent on creating a bomb, I suppose there are a lot of ways they could hide it. I've read reports and rumors in the paper that Iran is building underground facilities to hold the bomb making gear.

who needs fission when you have slagged fuel rods? (2)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#39786561)

you can kill more, more slowly, before anybody catches on, with a dirty bomb.

basically five pounds of nucleide dust hermetically sealed with a bunch of BBs and high explosive.

takes a lot of expertise to send a ballistic missle 2400 miles and hit the equivalent of a Volkswagen for maximum effect with a fission weapon..

takes two gomers sneaking across the border with a backpack and climbing some half-decent TV tower to do the other.

Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (1)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39783343)

Not quite. Dirty bombs maybe, but not a real nuke. And no, you are not going to be able to make them in "any metalworking shop". Because of the radioactive decay, specialized everything is needed.

Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39786665)

Why is the decay an issue? Uranium isn't that radioactive that it would interfere with electronics, and any oppressive regime worth worrying about should be willing to shorten a few technician-lives through insufficient shielding.

Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (1)

atrain728 (1835698) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780611)

I don't see how pp would be implicating that. And your imagination is seriously lacking. A majority of Americans at some point believed Saddam was behind 9/11, and in the military it was over 80%.

The claims about Iran aiding Al Qaedy aren't very successful.. On the other hand currently 71% of americans think Iran already has nuclear weapons (CNN nationwide poll, quality of sampling not known). While at the same time the NYTimes has stopped claiming that the west suspects Iran is working on a bomb, as a result of intelligence services speaking out loud enough. The claim has been quietly modified to "Iran might want to use their civilian program to help them to make a bomb later on".

The west doesn't suspect Iran is working on a bomb? For the tldr; version skip to section L. [iaea.org]

50. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

51. The Agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, as explained in GOV/2011/65. Iran did not provide access to Parchin, as requested by the Agency during its two recent visits to Tehran, and no agreement was reached with Iran on a structured approach to resolving all outstanding issues in connection with Iran’s nuclear programme.

Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (1)

tinkerton (199273) | more than 2 years ago | (#39781095)

Yes, US and Israeli intelligence - with all the uncertainties that come with such assessment - say that whatever there was, stopped or mostly stopped in 2003 . The NYTimes talks about it eg here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com] . The confusion is normal because Western intelligence contracticts everything you hear so how can it take in account the IAEA. This confusion is especially large with the press themselves because they've been exposed to the full load of propaganda.

There have been discussions about the IAEA report and while the IAEA is currently overstating the problems with Iran, careful reading should show they're not making the strong claims people believe they're making. They're not saying Iran is working on a bomb, or probably working on a bomb, and what they're saying is a bit shaky. The Parchin story in particular is weak, and there is no plausible connection between the container for controlled explosions and work on nukes.

Gareth Porter has been following the IAEA work for years now so you could read up on that. Here's Seymour Hersh's articles about the matter.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/iran-and-the-iaea.html [newyorker.com]
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all [newyorker.com]

So are Opinion Polls now facts? (1)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39783209)

I really don't get your point. Facts are what back things like "Iran aiding al-Qaeda", not an opinion poll.

Fact: Weapons and explosives have been tracked from al-Qaeda to Iran.

Fact: Pakistan has been harboring al-Qaeda for more than a decade.

Fact: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran all have and have had training camps for terrorism. While it is questionable that they are Government sanctioned or not, the fact is that they were there.

I really don't give a rats ass about what some moron that follows Lindsey Lohan thinks. The average person has no training in espionage, counter-espionage, counter terrorism, intelligence gathering, etc... They listen to what the Foxnews team tells them and believe it all. I mean.. good lord they thought Sarah Palin was US President material!?!

Please save the opinion poll BS for something more important.. like "What Newt Gingrich thinks!" or "Who will be the next GOP candidate?".

Re:how long? (2)

nukem996 (624036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779955)

I suppose you're implicating Iran in the 9/11 attacks, though it's hard to imagine anyone could be so ignorant.

Well most people still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. With the push for war against Iran I wouldn't be surprised more people started to beleive that.

Re:how long? (-1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780459)

Iraq was involved in the sheltering and moving of people involved in 9/11 because of his association with AQ. It is unlikely Saddam ever knew any operational details other than that the people he was sheltering were going to attack America, if even that. Contrary to claims by the left, that was all that was claimed by the US govt. It was the immediate lefty outrage over that which ballooned the perception that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks, because a lot of people naturally assumed the left was lying when they said Saddam wasn't involved in planning the 9/11 attacks.

Re:how long? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780993)

No, that is almost entirely revisionist. Saddam HATED Al Qaeda. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:how long? Windows (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780001)

That should teach Iran to not use windows on their computers.

Re:how long? Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780519)

I'm not sure why parent was modded down. Everybody knows windows is more prone to virusware for several reasons. If Iran is using windows desktops in their infrastructure then they deserve this.

Re:windows fault (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780305)

this sounds like a windows problem

Re:windows fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780603)

fucking m$ shills I can't even write windows I get modded down straight away

Re:how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780343)

If USA is going to declare the war to the authors of 9/11, it woudn't be WW3, it would be USA vs USA.

Re:how long? (1)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779647)

Nah, they will merely report the incident to the Cyber Police [youtube.com] .

Re:how long? (1, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779649)

before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3

I wonder how much of this kind of stuff is the work of 'Anonymous' style vigilantes, who think they should attack anyone and everyone that they don't approve of for some reason.

Perpetual non-state cyberwar may be the future of the internet.

Re:how long? (0)

ozduo (2043408) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779685)

I'm more inclined to believe that this is backed by selfish foreign powers who would prefer to keep the nukes for themselves

Re:how long? (2)

Dr Max (1696200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779861)

This sounds a bit more sophisticated than your average ddos ers. You need specially designed worms to go after control systems, and once its in there its no use just doing random stuff or breaking it; you need to change the right values just enough to disrupt production but not enough to be noticed (otherwise they just replace the $50 chip), or try to cause a massive explosion by going after some vital pieces of equipment and disabling all safety stops (while appearing normal to the human operators). Not saying some mad scientist hacker engineer couldn't do it on there own, but Israel and america are much more likely culprits (they have better access to companies providing Iran's equipment) and after the hacking of the US drone while over Iran i'm thinking its the world police.

Re:how long? (2)

Dr Max (1696200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779943)

Then again this could of been blown way out of proportion and it was a vigilante without a hope in hell of doing anything, or even simple internet virus.

Re:how long? (2)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780381)

...i'm thinking its the world police.

Oh... you mean U.N.I.T.? Good, then the Doctor's already on this one.

Re:how long? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780139)

You're talking about the US I presume? They seem to be the ones who match your description. :)

Re:how long? (1)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779661)

If history has taught us anything, August.
Feel free to post other references for late summer war predictions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_August [wikipedia.org]

Re:how long? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779831)

Do you actually know what that book is about? (For starters, it doesn't predict anything.)

Re:how long? (1)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39782555)

actually I just grabbed the first thing that popped up for war and august... but IIRC most conflics in history escalated in late summer... including WWI

Re:how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39779885)

Israel will attack in June. This is so they can plausibly deny that they are doing it to influence the US general election, while at the same time having US politicians support them due to the elections.

Re:how long? (5, Interesting)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779789)

before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3

There's almost nothing of any note on Kharq Island any more, most of it was destroyed during the Iran/Iraq war and never rebuilt. Have a look on Google Maps/Earth, there's a handful of oil storage tanks down the southern end, most of them completely empty, and one single ship that's almost certainly a bulk carrier (not an oil ship) docked there. The only reason Iran bothers to maintain a presence there is to extend their territorial claims into the Persian Gulf.

This is some sort of political shenanigans being played by Iran, nothing more.

Re:how long? (0, Flamebait)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779807)

how long? before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3

You mean like seeking regional hegemony [theaustralian.com.au] , running terrorist campaigns [cfr.org] worldwide [realite-eu.org] , threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz [telegraph.co.uk] , threaten Europe's energy supplies to freeze people [voiceofthecopts.org] , use suicide boats to attack gulf shipping [reuters.com] , arm Hezbollah to attack Israel [realite-eu.org] with and ultimate goal of destroying Israel [wiesenthal.com] , attack US troops [washingtonpost.com] , send suicide bombers to Europe and America [dailycaller.com] , aid America's enemies [washingtonpost.com] , threaten attacks on nearby countries and cities with missiles [usnews.com] , kill diplomats [bangkokpost.com] , subvert nearby countries [defenddemocracy.org] , unleash the suicide bomb brigades [meforum.org] (serious), and the ninjas [meforum.org] (you decide), perhaps adding some WMDs [fas.org] to the attacks?

I doubt that many people will buy it.

Re:how long? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780561)

Cool, now how about the same post but this time focused on the US and using similarly biased sources?

Oh right, that post is far too long for /.

Re:how long? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780649)

Good little propagandist! What a great job you've done in your effort to justify attacking Iran... I bet you have those links at the ready, don't you?

Just a few problems: some of your sources aren't just biased, they're downright dirty with a lengthy history of lying for Israel. One of Daniel Pipes' pet projects, the Council on Foreign Relations, Réalité EU - part of the Israel Project, the Simon Wiesenthal Center (really, not even trying to hide the BS there) and then a bunch of links that state that Iran will strike back and do such nefarious things as close the Strait of Hormuz if attacked, oh my! Should I counter with PressTV, RT and China Daily?

Undoubtedly, you have your reasons for distorting and propagandizing. But it should be known that you hold responsibility for the death and destruction carried out in your name. Whatever your motivation - fear, racism or simply cowardice, it's truly sad that you can't find more constructive outlets.

...until the US attacks yet another country? (3, Insightful)

Vincent77 (660967) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780105)

There is one country that has most of the nuclear warheads, Interfered in or even started most of the wars in the past 20 years, and is not silent on their goal for world-domination, and guess once, it is not Iran.

Re:...until the US attacks yet another country? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780785)

I think you are far too modest in your description, and you started to misspell it. They are no longer the USSR, but Russia. As the world's most heavily armed nuclear state [fas.org] , Russia does indeed have a history of adventurism [dailyuw.com] , but it stretches back far longer than 20 years, and they specialize in this sort of activity [popsci.com] , and know how to treat their helpers [youtube.com] .

ITT (5, Insightful)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779605)

In this thread, we have a computer at one of Iran's larger oil companies popping up an Avast alert due to an intern attempting to surf porn, and because of policies in place due to stuxnet, the entire computing infrastructure of Iran shuts down as a result. Gotta love spy.v.spy.

Re:Windows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780397)

gotta love governments using windows boxes for critical services, then its no wonder they get pwned by viruses and stuff

Re:Windows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39781443)

Quite right, they should use Macs, those fruits never get viruses.

had been detected before it could infect systems? (1)

Mr0bvious (968303) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779617)

Ummm, was there a virus or not?

Really! (1)

barv (1382797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779663)

After the charade surrounding the bank hack (mentioned recently on /.) I somehow doubt that the no doubt religiously correct Muslims operating Iran's defensive computer net have the capacity to accurately detect any virus, let alone eradicate it.

Re:Really! (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780989)

Then you're a fucking xenophobic idiot.

Eh? (2)

solarissmoke (2470320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779669)

How's that for an oxymoron:

The worm had been detected before it could infect systems.

Cold war (0, Troll)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779681)

Dear US/Isreal, are you trying to escalate this cold war into a hot one? I know you think you can crush Iran and just need an excuse, but trying to force the development of nuclear weapons is not the way to do it. Israel in particular gets a bit closer to being nuked every time you do this, and no-one wants to see that (apart from you guys apparently).

Re:Cold war (-1, Troll)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780135)

Dear US/Isreal, are you trying to escalate this cold war into a hot one? I know you think you can crush Iran and just need an excuse, but trying to force the development of nuclear weapons is not the way to do it. Israel in particular gets a bit closer to being nuked every time you do this, and no-one wants to see that (apart from you guys apparently).

I have no problem with Israel being nuked. In fact, I think it's what that region needs to get their shit together. This is a fight that has been brewing for a long time, let them duke, nuke, and destroy each other, and we can just go pick up the pieces and not worry about the shit heads (both Arab and Jewish) that live in that area.

Re:Cold war (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39781001)

You have no idea with hundreds of thousands of people dying? You're a cunt of the highest order.

Re:Cold war (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39781077)

s/idea/problem. Fucking emotion.

Re:Cold war (4, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780485)

To those who modded me -1 Troll:

What is your explanation for this behaviour? The US and Israel are at war with Iran, invading their air space with drones, surrounding them with military bases and the US Navy, and launching cyber-attacks against their infrastructure. Do they think that if they keep at it Iran will just give up and abandon all nuclear and space research, give up their arms and become a placid non-threatening nation? With Israel still right next door?

How do you think this is going to end? What possible sequence of events could lead to a peaceful resolution? How will attacking Iran make them decide to stop developing nuclear weapons?

Re:Cold war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39781803)

The US and Israel are at war with Iran

Where are the open hostilities? If by the standard of belligerence we currently see between Israel and Iran (espionage, sabotage, and strategic maneuvering) you deem them to be at war, then many European countries are at war with Sudan and Syria. China is at war with all of its sea-faring neighbors. Russia is at war with at least 2 of its western border countries. This, in a global field of "wars" between other smaller countries. I guess we are deep in World War 5 by your standards.

invading their air space with drones

It was outside of Iranian airspace and was guided into Iran by themselves

surrounding them with military bases and the US Navy

Yes, a dastardly plan those bases, decades in the making, with the sole goal of attacking Iran some day.

and launching cyber-attacks against their infrastructure.

How did you come to this conclusion that these specific countries were involved? How did you verify this? How did you confirm that some other nation's forces were not trying to further ignite hostilities to their own gain and to instill fears of the CIA/Mossad by spreading misinformation? [slashdot.org]

Re:Cold war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39782071)

The US and Israel are at war with Iran

No, they are trying to contain Iran, as Iran attempts to become a heavier hitter in the region and continues to fund all sorts of murderous insurgents in the name of denying their neighbors anything like a democracy and an open society. The mullahs that run the place don't want the people in Iraq or the people in Syria or the people in Afghanistan to set up 21st-century constitutional governments subject to regular elections. They want medieval theocratic thugocracy as a social model, and they know that millions of their own people DO NOT. Helping to stamp out such movements in nearby countries is part of their effort to suppress their own people urges towards modernity and a non-misogynistic, retrograde culture.. Simple as that.

Using things like drones to keep an eye on how they are supplying bombmakers in Afghanistan or shipping arms to the Baathist regime in Syria isn't "being at war" with Iran. Having military bases in the area isn't, either. Are we at war with China, given the number of bases we have around them in Asia? Are we at war with Europe? Have you counted the military installations we have there? Our war with Canada is looking pretty grim to you, too, I guess.

 

What possible sequence of events could lead to a peaceful resolution?

The religious dictators in the country are finally pushed out of power by the people they've been abusing, and the country once again carries on in a way that makes it possible for it to engage with the rest of the world, rather than threatening it and funding the deliberate murder of innocents in its slowly-evolving neighborhood. The sequence of events starts with a weakened bunch of totalitarian mullahs who - by insisting that they get involved in preventing others from having a rational future - are shown to be costing Iran's people a bright future. Millions of Iranians already know this, but were violently put down, with wide-spread slaughter, while trying to change things. The regime oppressing them needs to be crippled to the point where they cannot retain power. Millions of foward-looking Iranians are desparate for this to happen.

Using military tools to disable a nuclear weapons program is not "attacking Iran," it's defanging the dictators who are controlling the place at the point of a gun. Of course you know this, and are pretending it's not so. Which means you prefer to have those mullahs calling the shots. Which is an odd preference, and I'd like to see you explain that to people who are still mourning the family members killed by the mullahs' snipers during protest marches.

Recent IT escalation? (1)

bdabautcb (1040566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779705)

I have absolutely no professional or political insight on this issue. Circumstantially, I think it is fairly convenient that the recent controversy about Hormuz and the duplication of the drone happened recently and this story broke, along with the whole stuxnet business. I am not comp-sci literate enough to even understand what happened with that (although, I might be on par with a lot of folks who are dealing with these issues). Are we entering a new stage of 'cyber-warfare' that has been talked about since basically WWII, or are we talking about local infiltration of systems looking to debase a reigning power regime? Is this a serious national problem for Iran, or is it Imperialistic forces taking pre-emptive steps? I probably will never know, but I would like to, just because I am a huge nerd.

Re:Recent IT escalation? (1)

bdabautcb (1040566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779745)

Hate replying to myself, but I think it might be worthwhile to add: I have seen the internal workings of the water control systems of my fairly modest local area (3,000,000 area, largest municipal serves ~200-300 K). I would hate to see what happened if any of those controls were maliciously compromised, as it could lead to problematic flooding or draining municipal systems. I am concerned that the major controls for these systems are maintained computationally, but the tradeoff has been reduction in monitoring, and there may not be enough people on staff to mechanically secure the system if something seriously goes wrong. ~Fear mongering late on a Monday night.

Re:Recent IT escalation? (1)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779769)

Since there are so many with a lack of understanding of technology, sensational headlines and assumptions will be used by propagandists to push their agenda. It's effective.

Re:Recent IT escalation? (4, Insightful)

LittleImp (1020687) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779823)

Occams Razor: Someone accidentally downloaded a virus while surfing at work.

Re:Recent IT escalation? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39783307)

Occams Razor: Someone accidentally downloaded a virus while surfing at work.

Occams sharper Razor - a bunch of nice people have been downloading virus laden porn and warz at work, just like the rest of the world.

They got caught.

They cooked up a really great excuse: 'It's not my fault!'

Closing the door after the horse has bolted (1)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779713)

2011: Stuxnet, Iran takes its nuclear enrichment facilities off the net.

2012: Oil refineries hack, Iran takes its oil refineries off the net.

2013: Iran takes its power plants off the net.

2014: Iran takes its water treatment plants off the net.

2015: Iran takes ...

The sad thing is that other countries are much worse than that, so Iran is actually ahead of the pack.

Re:Closing the door after the horse has bolted (4, Insightful)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779785)

Except... nuclear enrichment facilities were not on the net...

Re:Closing the door after the horse has bolted (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39779993)

Correct. Stuxnet spread via multiple vectors, but the route by which it got into industrial control equipment was infected USB stick.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39782997)

Yeah. You'd think they'd learn something.

Heck, the nuclear enrichment facility hack was introduced on a USB device - surely during a nationwide crack-down on security, such glaringly obvious holes as "oil refinery control computers are connected to the 'net" would come to someone's attention. It's much more obvious than "employees can plug USB devices into critical control systems". Oh wait... there was no nationwide crack-down on security. Obviously.

They have found the solution (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780013)

There has been no word on the details of the malware found, but computer systems controlling several of Iran's oil facilities were disconnected from the Internet as a precaution.

And that's exactly how all the great "cyberwars" will end.

Well thats how The Naked Gun ended (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780155)

When Drebin pulled the plug for the nuclear device out of the wall socket and it shut down. Fact following fiction I guess which would be funny if it wasn't so worrying.

Simple rule of thumb. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39780127)

DON'T CONNECT CRITICAL SYSTEMS TO THE FUCKING INTERNET!

"Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."

I am yelling.

Quite (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780147)

You'd think the IT people who work in these sorts of critical installations whever in the world they are would have some vague clue about security. But I guess if there were no internet access they wouldn't be able to spend all day on social networks or surfing p0rn and clearly that takes priority over doing what they're fscking paid to do which is keep major infrastructure running.

Re:Quite (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780389)

You can have Internet access on the computer next to it - what's that got to do with having critical control systems accessible over the Internet?

1) Separate the two PHYSICAL networks.

2) Make sure that there are only authorised devices sit on the control network and NEVER anything else (big, huge, red lights and warnings when something new is detected).

3) Make sure that even pulling the Internet cable out does not in any way affect the control system, and that tampering with the control system or even detecting a single packet destined for or originating from anything other than authorised devices sets off so many warnings people wouldn't even try.

4) IF YOU REALLY MUST - make the control system expose only the absolute minimum of controls (i.e. don't trust user input and act only on a given, set, limited protocol of commands) over an encrypted protocol to only authorised devices from authorised networks that know all the one-time-passwords and whatever else you want to use to secure it. And never expose any interface that has the potential to be compromised autonomously (e.g. web interfaces etc.) - there's no need for it and the interface should NEVER be able to do anything but issue valid commands with all appropriate normal safeguards applied to them.

You do NOT need a general purpose operating system to run a nuclear reactor - it's not only an incredibly bad idea, they warn you against doing things like that in the OS EULA itself because it's JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH and provides too much scope for mischief.

One day, someone is going to end up running a nuclear reactor on Windows or something because they're just too thick to realise that's a problem and the slow creep of GPOS's into our lives will mean they will see nothing wrong with it.

Re:Quite (1)

alphax45 (675119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780543)

Wish I had mod points for you and the OP.

Re:Simple rule of thumb. (1)

TheMathemagician (2515102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780277)

Gee I bet they wish they'd thought of that before interfacing the reactor core control system with iTunes. This malicious software is explicitly tailored to the target systems and uploaded deliberately.

Hyperbole, much? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780159)

The iranian "oil industry" is doing just fine. This attack was nothing more than a website defacement. Hardly affecting "the industry".

Critical infrastructure systems.... (1)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39780197)

Critical infrastructure systems should not be online, anyways, right? Asking for trouble!

Re:Critical infrastructure systems.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39785425)

Critical Infrastructure Systems will always be online because you need to get data in/out of them.

It's a matter of how they are online. A data diode is an example of a one-way connection to get data out with physical isolate.

An example of external data that is needed is time. Somehow you must get time into these systems. One way is GPS - but that is still allowing some form of communication that might be hacked inbound.

Are we sure... (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39781471)

it was a "cyber" attack and not a bored controller surfing pr0n.

Winner from this? Russia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39783249)

Glut of natural gas from warm winter in US, bad for Russia.
Russia really benefits from higher natural gas and oil prices, doesn't it?

How many new programs for Linux? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784051)

Seriously, after seeing that a nation can be easily crippled via Windows, how soon will the none American programmers switch to Linux? My guess is that it will happen QUICKLY.

Assuming this was an attack... (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39784161)

Assuming this was an attack, and stuxnet was an attack; what happens when hostilities are resolved and the opposing countries go back to peace? Is it the responsiblity of the attacking country to clean up all the hard drives and firmware that was infected during the "war"? We all know how hard it can be to get rid of viruses/malware.

What happens when peace is declared and yet there are latent "weapons" sill self infecting the computers?

Uh, private network? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39784935)

I know this is going to sound like a silly question, but...

Why the @#$% were industrial systems used to control crude oil manufacturing facilities connected to the public Internet in the first place?

UNIX was to blame :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39789661)

@steveO: UNIX was to blame ...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?