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 Nuclear Agency Not "Thunderstruck" By Virus

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the back-in-black dept.

Security 91

twoheadedboy writes "Iran may have been hit hard by Stuxnet, but officials have said that reports of a virus infecting its nuclear facilities and forcing computers to play the AC/DC classic 'Thunderstruck' were rubbish. Last month, F-Secure's chief research officer, Mikko Hypponen, was sent an email that appeared to be from a scientist working at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), claiming nuclear systems had been targeted by cyber attackers. Whilst the chief of the AEOI has come out to deny those claims, the sender of that email still managed to get hold of an official aeoi.org.ir email address. That has left some onlookers baffled about what is going on."

cancel ×

91 comments

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

F-Suckered (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860345)

Did Mikko Hypponen fall pray to spoofing?
hehe

One or both lied? (4, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860355)

Why would anyone be "baffled" by what is going on? It is not like it would be unprecedented for the chief of a government agency to outright lie about something like this. On the other hand it would not be unprecedented for the "leaker" to turn out to be lying either.

Re:One or both lied? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40860533)

Now that you mention it, I'm beginning to wonder why I should believe you, Attila Dimedici!

Re:One or both lied? (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860571)

But, if he KNOWS that you know he knows you know he is lieing, he's got the edge!

Re:One or both lied? (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861379)

Don't drink from either cup. They're both poisoned.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40879269)

Ahhh, instead, go for the eye.

Re:One or both lied? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40863449)

Thank you, Mr Data.

Re:One or both lied? (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860853)

Actually, I called this Bogus [slashdot.org] at the time the story broke on SlashDot.

If the story had a more plausible origin I might have believed it, but to have originated from a top Nuclear Scientist in a paranoid state, who somehow sneaks an email past his keepers is just silly. If such a scientist has that ability, and a desire to embarrass the state they would leak far more devastating information than a childish exploit.

The email is as likely to have come from someone who actually tried (and perhaps failed) to plant such an exploit within Iranian systems. Or it was, as I suggested totally made up. Perhaps to gauge the reaction to a known false claim.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40872653)

Why would he have to have snuck it by? Perhaps he is supposed to get help from security contractors when there is an emerging computer security threat.

The whole reason that Stuxnet worked was that Iran was still dependent on Siemens controllers. It is not like they are Russia and they have their own people for all of that. They are a fairly small country, with a weak economy and not much high-tech industry.

Re:One or both lied? (4, Insightful)

radtea (464814) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860921)

It is not like it would be unprecedented for the chief of a government agency to outright lie about something like this.

Much like US and Israeli intelligence agencies are lying about the threat of an Iranian bomb, which the Iranians have no intention of building.

Why do I find this claim plausible? Because the Israelis in particular have been claiming that Iran has been trying to build a bomb for over 20 years, and Iran does not yet have the bomb. That would put the Iranians in Sidney Opera House territory in terms of how late their project is.

Building nuclear weapons is easy. It only took four years the very first time to design and build both uranium and plutonium bombs from scratch, and it was done by people whose resources were fantastically limited compared to even a moderately wealthy state like modern Iran. Iran has a per capita GDP of about $3600, which is about half of the US at the bottom of the Great Depression and 1/3 of what it was in the early '40's, and what can be bought for those dollars is light-years ahead of what could be had in 1942, so there are no significant economic or technological constraints on Iran today compared to the US 70 years ago.

But Iran doesn't have a bomb? Why not?

Iranians aren't stupid or uneducated or technologically backward. Why would it take them more than a few years to replicate a relatively simple piece of technology?

The most plausible explanation to my mind is that they are not working on building one. If they were, they would have it by now.

It is perfectly reasonable for an oil-producing country to create a significant civil nuclear program, as the example of Canada shows, so the fact that Iran has oil in no way implies that they don't need nuclear power.

None of this makes much sense, unless Iran is not working on building a bomb.

Re:One or both lied? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861257)

Wow, dude. I could drive a truck through that logic, but I don't have the energy to argue with you.

Re:One or both lied? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40920707)

You don't have the energy? Start a nuclear program!

Re:One or both lied? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861419)

Stop making logical arguments and drawing intelligent conclusions. You are breaking protocol against policy. This is a story about America and Israel, and we are talking about Iran. Take your daily dose of FUD, put on your uncle sam hat, and say some ignorant, ill thought, poorly articulated, hateful, xenophobic, paranoid stuff like the rest of us. I recommend you go dig up some neo-Nazi Gestapo anti Semitic rhetoric from your grandfathers bookshelf and replace "Jew" with "Persian" or "Iranian", and perhaps polish it off with some of the new and shiny fox news buzzwords that are being thrown around these days to make it easier for the parrots to communicate about the international politics they do not understand whilst instilling a sense of resentment towards rationality and appealing to a false sense of pseudo patriotism in stupid people who are the product of our public education system.

In an effort to avoid generalizing and stereotyping, I must admit that there are outliers of the public education system, but they have treasonous parents to blame for their unpatriotic defiance in the face of our attempt to eradicate critical thinking amongst the masses.

 

Re:One or both lied? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861821)

funny sarcasm in obvious disguise of trolling as a method of articulating agreement with the parent post is modded down? wtf happened to slashdot?!

Re:One or both lied? (2)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861745)

Iran got an advanced centrifuge design from A.Q. Khan that is extremely difficult to operate in practice. (We also interdicted the supply of some of the advanced machine components it requires.) For some reason, they stuck with it, and eventually got it to work. That's why it's taken them so long to get significant enrichment.

Now, if they were on a crash program to build a bomb, they could have abandoned it and pursued a simpler earlier Soviet design. So I agree it's not their first priority. Indeed, the fact that they stuck with the expensive but efficient technology suggests that they want more than to just "build a bomb".

However, that doesn't preclude a dual program, to pursue civilian uses, but retain the option of building a bomb as well. I suspect that's their real intention, and there is evidence that they've done some preliminary weapons work (such as implosion devices and delivery systems, IIRC). Iraq actually used (chemical) WMDs against them in the 1980s, and with all the U.S. activity in the region, they may eventually want a deterrent.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

tinkerton (199273) | more than 2 years ago | (#40865515)

If you say "dual program" people will understand something different than if you say "retaining the option". There is pretty much a consensus in US and Israeli intelligence that Iran has not been doing any work on nuclear bombs in the last 10 years. but it's no secret they want that option. Having the option is a deterrent. It does not mean you want to make a bomb. They did bomb related research prior to 2003, but whether there was an actual intent to create a bomb then is very much speculation. Just to get an idea of how realistic your claim of nuclear capability is, you need to do research. If you want to know how much time you'd need, you need to do research. If you give your research to the military, some of them will want to do more research than was asked of them.

The most radical "nuclear threshold" policy I know is that of Japan. They want to be able to assemble bombs within 2 months time. This policy falls within NPT rules.

Iran had the capability of responding tit for tat with chemical weapons in the eighties, and they refused. I've talked about this stuff before on here.

CNN made a remarkable documentary on the Iran nuclear program a few months back http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/14/special-presentation-nuclear-iran-the-expert-intel/ [cnn.com]
Remarkable in that it's so different from general reporting. there was a CNN poll two years earlier showing that 70% of americans already believed iran had nuclear bombs. CNN can blame themselves for that.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40879697)

Meanwhile IV Reich^W^W Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades and routinely "rattles its sword" [guardian.co.uk] at neighbouring countries, occasionally launching some conventional assault on them as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran came up with something entirely new in the nuclear energy field and everyone dependent on oil profits wanted to stop them.

Re:One or both lied? (3, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861833)

Actually the way that uranium was separated for the Manhattan Project was tremendously inefficient and expensive. Iran has a larger population than the US and dollars depreciate in value due to inflation. This is why they are bothering with centrifuges. Well that and the fact that the technology is not supposed to be particularly hard to implement with a reasonable industrial base. Centrifuge separation is much more efficient than either of the processes used in the US to separate the uranium for its nuclear weapons. Why did they fail to do the weapons before? Having a revolution may have helped delay the project. After the revolution they had to fight the Iran-Iraq war. Then they had sanctions. It is well known that the Iranian army, which used to be the strongest army in the region when the Shah was in power, was recklessly abandoned and lots of people were ousted from the military in favor of Islamic revolutionary brigades or whatever. The result was that when Saddam invaded in the Iran-Iraq War they lost terribly until they got back some of the ex-military people to have a military edge for breakthroughs while they used massed human wave attacks to overwhelm the Iraqi positions. The revolutionary brigades did not know how to handle the more advanced military weapons platforms.

Iranians are not stupid. I have met several which are professors or researchers in universities all over North America and they manage to compete against other researchers very well. Their grasp of mathematics and geometry is particularly good. The US may have had the Depression and WWII but their enemies were an ocean away.

Re:One or both lied? (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862399)

Iran has a larger population than the US...

Um, no they don't. They do not even have a larger population than the U.S. had at the time of the Manhattan Project.

Re:One or both lied? (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 2 years ago | (#40865049)

This is one of those times I wish /. had an edit button. Ah well. You probably figured I wrote that bit wrong from the tone used in the rest of the post.

s/Iran has/Iran does not have/

Re:One or both lied? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40863891)

Iran has a larger population than the US

What the fuck? Iran's population is less than a quarter of the US.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40879803)

Centrifuge separation is much more efficient than either of the processes used in the US to separate the uranium for its nuclear weapons.

And yet breeding plutonium would be even more efficient. And logical - if they really wanted to build weapons.

Re:One or both lied? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40863057)

Much like US and Israeli intelligence agencies are lying about the threat of an Iranian bomb, which the Iranians have no intention of building.

How the hell would you know? The Iranian mullahs that are Iran's de facto rulers called you up and told you their plans?

Re:One or both lied? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40865261)

It's only logical that Israelis think that under their nuke facilities are huge bomb building factories. After all that's how they would do it.

Anyhow when it's time to go after Finland?? Finland is building a new nuclear reactor and has all the infrastructure and technical know how to make all the parts needed for da bomb! oh the humanity!

Re:One or both lied? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40866439)

You are not using valid reasoning. The '20 years' have involved more than one person in power in Iran. It is far more plausible to believe that A. The nuclear program has been started and stopped as regimes and political winds changed. B. There has been some success in the massive efforts to prevent Iran from successfully completing its program.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40879839)

You are not using valid reasoning. The '20 years' have involved more than one person in power in Iran.

Nope. [slashdot.org]

Re:One or both lied? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40879859)

WTF happened? Correct link. [wikipedia.org]

Re:One or both lied? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40867517)

Blah, blah, blah, US, Israel, blah, blah, blah.

Look, I'm not particularly a fan of the US, but the evidence against Iran is now pretty damning that even the IAEA agrees there's a lot of evidence suggesting a military dimension to Iran's activities. See the IAEA report and get it directly from the horses mouth if you wish:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-23.pdf [iaea.org]

Specifically:

"40. The Annex to the Director Generalâ(TM)s November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. This information, which comes from a wide
variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agencyâ(TM)s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that, prior to the end of 2003 the activities took place under a structured programme; that some continued after 2003; and that some may still be ongoing."

Perhaps the reason Israel has been making this claim for 20 years is because it's actually true? Making a bomb isn't exactly a quick process so the argument that accusations have been going on for 20 years doesn't in any way discredit the suggestion. Note also that the 20 years figure doesn't mean they were putting anywhere near the resources into it that they may have in recent years - a poorly funded, poorly staffed nuclear project wont get anywhere even in 10 years. Iran also has space militarisation and ballistic missile ambitions too, their scientists can only be spread so thin - even America has trouble resourcing a lot of space missions now despite having far more well and far more clever people at their disposal.

"Iranians aren't stupid or uneducated or technologically backward. Why would it take them more than a few years to replicate a relatively simple piece of technology?"

Well, ignoring the fact that it's not actually that simple, especially when you recognise that if they are trying to do so, they're trying to do so on an independent level - i.e. by enriching their own nuclear materials, there are other reasons why it may take so long:

- Nations like Israel have been killing key members of their nuclear programme

- A number of embargos make it difficult for them to get the components they need

- If you haven't noticed, their systems have been crippled a number of times by cyber attacks

It's only a simple process if you have all the equipment you need, don't suffer any supply chain issues, your scientists with key knowledge can work on the project without having their lives cut short, you can afford it, and most importantly, you've done it before. You cite the original bombs as examples, but why do you think the British headed to America to embark upon the project over there with them? It's a lot easier to do in mainland America than it is Britain which was at the time being bombarded day in and day out and was riddled with spies and sabboteurs.

"The most plausible explanation to my mind is that they are not working on building one. "

That's great, but thankfully we can ignore your mind and listen to folks who actually know what they're on about, like the IAEA.

"None of this makes much sense, unless Iran is not working on building a bomb."

On the contrary, it all makes sense if Iran has been working on a military nuclear programme. What doesn't make sense if Iran is not working on a bomb as you propose is why the Iranian's wont simply let inspectors visit the full range of sites they've requested to access, and allow them to view the full range of paperwork they've requested to view if you have nothing to hide? What, you think Iran has some magical nuclear technology that is so advanced they don't want the West to steal it with their claims that the IAEA is riddled with spies? The only thing that doesn't make sense is Iran's non-compliance if they're innocent, and to turn your Canada argument around, just about every other signatory manages to comply okay, so why does Iran find it so difficult? You realise the IAEA even let Iran pick and choose which inspectors to let in too so that they could eliminate any inspectors they perceived maybe biased against them but still wouldn't give them access right? The fact is Iran is really out of excuses as to why they might deny access, yet still they do so, this coupled with evidence that they certainly had a military programme prior to 2003 with evidence it quite possibly continued doesn't exactly bode well for your argument of it not making sense that they would be making one.

Note that they have also been working on a civilian nuclear programme for a long time and have struggled with this too despite assistance from originally Germany and now Russia, so your same argument can apply to that - "Well the first reactors weren't too hard, they only took a couple of years, so if Iran really wanted a nuclear power programmer why haven't they achieved it yet. Iran has far more money and more access to better equipment now than the West did back then so it should be easy right?". So why did it take them 17years to get something like this producing power when America's EBR-I only took 2 years from start of building in 1949 to start producing power in 1951 when we America had far less resources and far less blah blah blah.

The US and Israel have done a lot of bad things in the world, but that doesn't mean that Iran is somehow a sweet innocent little country who would do no wrong. Not least they have a long history of creating instability through proxy militias in Lebanon, Iraq, and to a lesser extent even Afghanistan. Note also that some recent suicide attacks stretching all the way from Bulgaria to Malaysia, have been linked to Iran and again yes, the CIA and Mossad has a long history of this shit too, but it doesn't mean Iran deserves defending over it.

I'm not sure what you find difficult to grasp that would leave you feeling that it doesn't make sense, other than your misguided premise that any nation can trivially make a nuclear bomb.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

radtea (464814) | more than 2 years ago | (#40868195)

The only thing that doesn't make sense is Iran's non-compliance if they're innocent

As I recall a very similar argument was used not too long ago regarding "weapons of mass destruction" in a country immediately adjacent to Iran. The argument was false then, and it is false now. Nation-states are not rational actors: they obfuscate and sabre-rattle for all kinds of reasons in pursuit of their often-misguided perceptions of their national interest.

Your quote from the IAEA is a nice bit of bait-and-switch. Iran is generally portrayed as actively pursuing nuclear weapons in a systematic way, and this is held up as an argument for bombing or invasion. Yet the best "evidence" you can come up with is a rather tepid statement that there was some systematic work that was terminated a decade ago, and some components of that work might still be ongoing.

That is a far, far cry from the kind of thing that is used to justify talk of bombing or invasion, and if you presented the average person with the (fairly plausible) claim, "Some elements of the Iranian scientific, military and engineering establishment may be doing work that could one day contribute to an Iranian nuclear weapons programme if they ever start one" you would not get anything like the same jingoistic response as you'd get from the wildly implausible claims, "Iran has an active nuclear weapons programme" or "Iran has been actively pursuing a nuclear weapons for the past 20 years."

The rest of your "argument" is just a zombie-like collection of straw people, score palpable hits against things I did not say and points I did not make.

Oh, and Iran took a long time building a power reactor because it wasn't a high priority for them. Take off your paranoia-goggles and you'll see how plausible that is.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

tinkerton (199273) | more than 2 years ago | (#40869515)

Xest, at least you did the work of looking up actual sources. But I don't think you're there yet.

You could look up the piece the consistence that got so much publicity, the detonation chamber in Parchin.
It's not mentioned directly in the actual document you linked to but the document has a reference to an earlier document from nov2011 you can find over here
http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf [isis-online.org]
Read items 44 and 45 under C.6. Initiation of high explosives and associated experiments
They actually mention those containers could be used for creation of nanodiamonds, but the emphasis is that this may well be a cover.

Now other sources make mincemeat of the accusation that the Iranians would use the container for developing nuclear triggers and claim the very likely reason for that explosives container is just that, creating nanodiamonds, and this is exactly Danilenko's specialty.
See ex IAEA inspector Robert Kelley here http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/11/ex-inspector-rejects-iaea-iran-bomb-test-chamber-claim/ [ipsnews.net]

Now, you have the IAEA demanding access to a military site, to which they normally have no right of access because it's not nuclear, and they can't make a decent case for it. And Iran is not happy to provide access since the IAEA is not being reasonable.

Does that sound anything like what you've heard about the case? To me this looks like building a case from nothing, in multiple steps - first by the IAEA , by casting suspicion while not actually making hard claims, and then by the US and the media, converting the suspicions to plausible guesses..

Re:One or both lied? (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861425)

Why would anyone be "baffled" by what is going on? It is not like it would be unprecedented for the chief of a government agency to outright lie about something like this. On the other hand it would not be unprecedented for the "leaker" to turn out to be lying either.

Remember that Iran is a country with no homosexuals. This marvelous achievement in the field of biology could hint at similar breakthroughs in other areas of science and engineering including computer security!

Re:One or both lied? (1)

dev.null.matt (2020578) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861527)

While they might claim to have to gays, they do have a TON of transexuals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran [wikipedia.org] , apparently.

Re:One or both lied? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862519)

A couple of years ago, there was a documentary about forced sex changes on homosexuals in Iran.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862359)

It really is not that marvelous. After all, it is amazing how few dead people have sexual preferences. And considering that homosexuals in most other countries are only about 2% of the population, it really does not take all that many more dead people since there are so many other types of people that the Iranian government does not want living in Iran either.

Re:One or both lied? (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#40864257)

Why would anyone be "baffled" by what is going on? It is not like it would be unprecedented for the chief of a government agency to outright lie about something like this. On the other hand it would not be unprecedented for the "leaker" to turn out to be lying either.

Heh, Iraq had Baghdad Bob [youtube.com] , maybe Iran now has "Tehran Terry"?

you know... i wish this HAD happened.. (5, Funny)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860389)

Seriousy, how many billions of dollars would isreal and the US owe AC/DC and I think capitol records for unauthorized distribution and exhibition?

Are you kidding? (2)

spineboy (22918) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860527)

Sic the RIAA after them - they go sue Iran, and bankrupt their nuclear program.

Re:Are you kidding? (2, Funny)

NalosLayor (958307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860727)

Or the RIAA will be crushed under wave attacks. Either way, we win.

Re:you know... i wish this HAD happened.. (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860909)

How did they know it was Tunderstruck ?
Hell, I didn't even know the song was released inf Farsi .

[peeks at Google Translate, No, no-can-do].

Re:you know... i wish this HAD happened.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861595)

How did they know it was Tunderstruck ?
Hell, I didn't even know the song was released inf Farsi .

[peeks at Google Translate, No, no-can-do].

Try "Persian" retard. In English, "Farsi" is to "Persian" as "Deutsch" is to "German". In other words, the use of "Farsi" in English dialogue is incorrect, unless of course you went to UCLA, where they focus on "Amerikuhn" translations and transliterations of Persian instead of English.

Last I checked Google got it right and is using "Persian" to refer to the language of Iran, not "Farsi". As the most successful minority in the US according to the CIA factbook, Iranians are of course on the forefront of technology in the US and lead the technical revolution with the greatest contribution per capita of any stratification or demographic of the population. Ergo it is not surprising that Google is partially led by Iranians at every management layer from C level to VP to Director and they got the language part down straight.

That said, you are right. There is no translation of Thunderstruck in Persian, and that is EXACTLY why there is a denial of the incident. They thought it was a Metallica song or something.

Re:you know... i wish this HAD happened.. (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#40864347)

How did they know it was Thunderstruck ?
Hell, I didn't even know the song was released inf Farsi .

B--0h4p0h7p0h4p0h7p0h4p0h7p0h4p0h7p0h|4p0h7p0h4p0h7p0h4p0h7p0h4p0h7p0h|

it's a pretty distinctive riff.

Re:you know... i wish this HAD happened.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40865209)

Hammer-ons and pull-offs can be seen on the music video, but that's just for the show.

On the record, Angus picks all the notes.
Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWJ9AID37z0&t=02m04s [youtube.com]

He also picks the notes when he plays live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHO4V9vWRY [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o018byLnMFM [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaCqtj6WYK4 [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJbnT018vgc [youtube.com]

Re:you know... i wish this HAD happened.. (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#40865229)

Excellent... Going to have to give that a go when I get home. Thanks

Re:you know... i wish this HAD happened.. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862113)

Seriousy, how many billions of dollars would isreal and the US owe AC/DC and I think capitol records for unauthorized distribution and exhibition?

Probably nothing. Iranian copyright law [wikipedia.org] only protects works created in Iran. But it looks like while the US may not stop Iran from getting nukes, it is going to nail them with DMCAs of mass destruction as Iran has recently signaled interest in signing the Berne Convetion (international treaty that "normalizes" copyright law between most nations on the planet).

or was it worse? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860411)

...and it really DID play a movie of naked girls eating bacon??

That would be good news.

Re:or was it worse? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860473)

What they don't tell you is that the actual payload of the virus didn't disable any computer systems, per se.

Much worse, it immediately reduced the capability of all of the employees to being able to use only one hand to type with.

Re:or was it worse? (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860483)

No silly. In true slashdot tradition, it would be Natily Portman dressed only in a crispy bacon bikini, slathering herself in hot grits.

Re:or was it worse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40860587)

I don't get it.

On the other hand, I now have the weirdest boner...

Re:or was it worse? (1)

neminem (561346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860765)

I wasn't even around for those days, but somehow I still know that it's an old slashdot meme. I believe for some reason she's also supposed to be petrified?

Re:or was it worse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861157)

Natalie Portman is a vegetarian. She is Jewish, too. So... bacon? Good luck with that.

Re:or was it worse? (0)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861493)

It could be soy!

Re:or was it worse? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861575)

Every Jew and Vegetarian I know will eat bacon. Apparently there is an exception.

Re:or was it worse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40865045)

Apparently there is an exception.

One day I was making a grocery list and I asked the wife if there was anything she wanted, she replied "pork rinds". I asked "are you sure" and she replied "YES, I'M SURE!". So off I went to do the grocery shopping. Upon arriving home my wife was waiting for me and practically snatched the bags from my hands. I stared in disbelief as tore into the pork rinds and started eating them with a look of satisfaction on her face I hadn't seen in ages. So I said "I guess you decided not to be a vegetarian anymore?". She shot me a quizzical look and I stated very calmly that pork rinds were in fact made with pork. A look of horror washed over her and she made a b-line for the bathroom. I threw away the pork rinds as I listened to the muffled sounds of her purging and we have never, ever spoken of said incident. Weirdest day of my entire life.

Re:or was it worse? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40870729)

Should have kept your mouth shut.

Should have served Pork Rinds at the next vegan conspiracy meeting.

Ask yourself: If you were making a fool of yourself in front of her and her friends would she tell you or cluck with her friends?

Re:or was it worse? (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40872735)

I am neither a Jew or a vegetarian, but I won't touch bacon. Fried mammal fat is disgusting.

I don't cook my beans with lard, either.

Re:or was it worse? (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861215)

No silly. In true slashdot tradition, it would be Natily Portman dressed only in a crispy bacon bikini, slathering herself in hot grits.

That sounds distinctively unpleasant.

Why would they still use Windows? (2)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860607)

Jeez, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

Re:Why would they still use Windows? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40880275)

No, no, no,

... a fool can't get fooled again.

So... (4, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860625)

...The NSA says Hells Bells, Iran is Back in Black, and not Thunderstruck. We just need Big Balls to do more Dirty Deeds. Then we can Shoot to Thrill with T.N.T and Shake Them All Night Long!

Re:So... (3)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860749)

Since STUXNET was designed to incorrectly calibrate centrifuges, there is a distinct possibility that the Girl's Got Rhythm.

Re:So... (0)

bbecker23 (1917560) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861545)

We could try to do all of that, but frankly I don't think we've got The Jack.

Re:So... (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#40864353)

Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah...

No AC/DC here.

I can send mail from aeoi.org.ir (5, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860633)

still managed to get hold of an official aeoi.org.ir email address

That is not particularly difficult. Anyone can send mail under any email address they want.

There is of course SPF and DomainKeys, but aeoi.org.ir does not resolve for me at all (not even an NS record) so those do not apply.

Re:I can send mail from aeoi.org.ir (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860875)

My first thought exactly. If "managed to get hold of ... email address" really means stuffed it into From: header, then this means absolutely nothing.

Re:I can send mail from aeoi.org.ir (-1, Redundant)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861021)

Thanks for reiterating what I already iterated in FP.
Do you guys really not know what spoofing is?

Re:I can send mail from aeoi.org.ir (0)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862621)

Awww, I'm sorry your FP didn't get modded up. Want to cry on my shoulder?

Re:I can send mail from aeoi.org.ir (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862405)

You know, I'd like to think that F-Secure wouldn't be dumb enough to believe a forged From address... I'd like to think that, but I'd probably bet otherwise.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40860673)

And Baghdad Bob also told us no tanks were approaching Baghdad. This just in: Governments lie to save face.

Thun-Der! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40860699)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TCy2VY6TVk

Not "Thunderstruck" (1)

blagooly (897225) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860703)

it was "Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap".

It was much worse (5, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860743)

It wasn't Thunderstruck as first reported but actually Justin Beiber's Baby Baby. Several technicians took their own lives before the speakers could be silenced.

Re:It was much worse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40860975)

..so many funny posts, so few mod points.





---
posting AC because of mod points

It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40860979)

They should have forced it to play "Lola".

I walked to the door
I fell to the floor
I got down on my knees
And I looked at her and she at me
And that's the way that I want it to be
I always want it to be that way for my Lola
Lo Lo Lo Lo Lola...

Thunderstruck... (3, Insightful)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861233)

Thunderstruck has been my sound system(s) acid test since it's release.

Whew! (2)

sethmeisterg (603174) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861267)

I'm so glad they're using a .org TLD. That means they must be working on a civilian nuclear project. Whew, I'm so relieved!

Re:Whew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861627)

No, their TLD is .ir. They have .org in there, but Iran might treat their URL scheme differently than we do. Some countries use .gov.tld, some don't.

Re:Whew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862693)

Their bid for .war TLD is still being processed. I fear that USA may be trying for the same TLD. Image the difference in iran.war depending on who the winner is.

What I Want To Know... (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861335)

Is if the RIAA is going to sue the Iranians or the authors of the virus or both for copyright infringement?

Viral Marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861427)

My bets are on early viral marketing for Iron Man 3...

the real story to the olympics-gawking majority is (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861669)

.. that the US and Israel are a couple of war-mongers, who, as soon as
said Olympics have finished, will wage another agressive imperialistic
hegemonic war.

Typical Iranian Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861721)

Remember when the president of Iran was asked about gays and homosexuals in his country? His response was "No, we don't have that here." Truth is anyone comes out and admits it is probably killed. They were Thunderstruck and they're going to deny it because they don't want the world knowing they're not all-that in the world of technology and their system was compromised.

Mikko Hypponen - snake oil salesman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861847)

Mikko Hypponen goes around security conferences handing out exploits to hackers and script kiddies (code in slides during talks), exploits that are detectable in the wild by F-Secure, but not necessarily all other AV software. this looks great when he can say that his global security centre war room, has detected and stopped thousands of attacks.

The dude is a media whore and a scare monger, F-Secure is the solution to all your computer security problems.

"the sender of that email still managed to get (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861859)

hold of an official aeoi.org.ir email address."

huh?

anyone can do that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spoofing [wikipedia.org]

are you telling me Mikko Hypponen has some trustworthy independent means to verify the email actually came from aeoi.org.ir?

or are you telling me aeoi.org.ir is using some verification scheme when sending emails to random Western audiences, or that such an infrastructure even exists/ is trustworthy?

"Last month, F-Secure's chief research officer, Mikko Hypponen, was sent an email that appeared to be from a scientist working at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), claiming nuclear systems had been targeted by cyber attackers."

yeah, "appears"

either I must be a complete idiot and not getting something here, because Mikko knows a heck of a lot more about email security than me, but "was sent an email that appeared to be from" sounds like somebody at Langley VA or Tel Aviv or just some warmongering kiddie in a basement somewhere

is this a hyped nonstory? or am i not understanding obvious here?

Re:"the sender of that email still managed to get (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40872799)

You seem to mistake a heavily hedged statement for an unprofessional one. In this I think you are mistaken.

hey now (-1, Redundant)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862077)

give these guys a chance. I mean the state department is obviously trying [wikipedia.org] as best [wikipedia.org] they can [wikipedia.org] to tune the war drums. [wikipedia.org] You cant expect an overnight sensation like Iraq every time.

Never forget: "Our" agencies are much better... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40863349)

...and that also means much better at lying and brainwashing or just making shit up.

No, Iran wasn't Thunderstruck by Stuxnet either (1)

tinkerton (199273) | more than 2 years ago | (#40865351)

If you check this wapo article [washingtonpost.com] . I guess it depends on your interpretation of "hit hard by stuxnet" . In Natanz about 1000 centrifuges were replaced during that time, or 10%, for whatever reason, and the Uranium production during 2010 was not lower.

Noooo! (1)

detritus. (46421) | more than 2 years ago | (#40865801)

Damn, and all this time I was hoping for a counter-cyber attack to play Aerosmith's Pink [rt.com] on all the Whitehouse's computers.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>