Stuxnet: Product of the USA and Israel

[phongn]

Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 1, 2012

WASHINGTON — From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.

At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm’s “escape,” Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised.

(more)

TL;DR: Stuxnet is a joint US-Israeli project, started under Bush and deployed under Obama. A bug led it to being spread outside the Iranian facilities, where it was eventually detected.

[Thanas]

Anybody surprised about this, please raise a hand........


anybody?

[Mr Bean]

Anybody surprised about this, please raise a hand........


anybody?

Surprised it was a joint Israel-US attack yes. This sounds like the kind of thing we'd balk over and the Iraeli's would go ahead with on their own.

*Edit
The reason I'm surprised the US was part of this is because we are still in the "putting real good hackers in jail and making them swear off computers forever" phase of our cyber war.

[phongn]

Anybody surprised about this, please raise a hand........

Well, no, but this appears to be confirmation, which nobody had.

The reason I'm surprised the US was part of this is because we are still in the "putting real good hackers in jail and making them swear off computers forever" phase of our cyber war.

We do that to non-government ones, sure. That doesn't stop us from hiring our own in various agencies to attack other countries.

[Ariphaos]

Surprised it was a joint Israel-US attack yes. This sounds like the kind of thing we'd balk over and the Iraeli's would go ahead with on their own.

*Edit
The reason I'm surprised the US was part of this is because we are still in the "putting real good hackers in jail and making them swear off computers forever" phase of our cyber war.

It was pretty clear from the analysis that it was a two-team project, with one rather incompetent team building on a more competent team's work.

[K. A. Pital]

Next time when "Chinese hackers" or anyone from Anonymous steals and publishes tons of government secrets and dirty laundry or attacks U.S. government websites to force 'em down, that's only a modest payback coming late.

[Block]

How's that make sense?

[K. A. Pital]

How's that make sense?

Using a computer virus for direct industrial sabotage against another nation is a far greater transgression than just downing some gov websites or releasing confidential information. So that makes perfect sense.

[Block]

How's that make sense?

Using a computer virus for direct industrial sabotage against another nation is a far greater transgression than just downing some gov websites or releasing confidential information. So that makes perfect sense.

I couldn't disagree more. I think it was a clever and non-violent way to disrupt a potentially very harmful program, and has fuck all to do with Anonymous' often childish actions. Shutting down government websites for lulz is stupid.

[Lord Zentei]

Using a computer virus for direct industrial sabotage against another nation is a far greater transgression than just downing some gov websites or releasing confidential information. So that makes perfect sense.

It would only properly be called "payback" if Iran were to do it. As opposed to merely being schadenfreude for Iran


Anyhow, it's hardly a secret anymore that the USA & Israel are waging a "war of assassins" against Iran already, so no, this is not a surprise.

[Serafina]

So, putting some graffiti on a shops window (messing with a government website) is a greater transgression than breaking their tools, piping etc. (destroying a government program)?


Oh, wait, i forgot: If it benefits your national interests it is good, and other nations are not allowed to have their own national interests.

[Block]

So, putting some graffiti on a shops window (messing with a government website) is a greater transgression than breaking their tools, piping etc. (destroying a government program)?


Oh, wait, i forgot: If it benefits your national interests it is good, and other nations are not allowed to have their own national interests.

Nice false analogy.

[Ralin]

So, putting some graffiti on a shops window (messing with a government website) is a greater transgression than breaking their tools, piping etc. (destroying a government program)?


Oh, wait, i forgot: If it benefits your national interests it is good, and other nations are not allowed to have their own national interests.

Maybe not worse, but I still wouldn't compare a bunch of channers committing the cyber equivalent of vandalism to a country (or two countries) acting to stop a perceived threat from another country. Especially when it's an alternative to things like air strikes or invasion.

[K. A. Pital]

I know that people like Block who do not view Iran and USA as two absolutely equal sovereign states might disagree with my view. So what?

It would only properly be called "payback" if Iran were to do it

The Karma Police works in mysterious ways.

[Alyeska]

The Iranians are better off negotiating with Russia. They have better relations and Russia has the same experience with nuclear technology as the US. If the US wanted honest work done, at this point it would be best to un-involve itself from the process. Iran cannot trust us at this point.

[Ralin]

There's another alternative to air strikes and invasion too: accepting Iran's inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT and talking to them about the other concerns with mutual dignity and respect.

I totally believe Iran as a sovereign nation has a right to develop nuclear technology. Hell, I'm personally hoping they do come up with a working nuclear weapon just on the grounds that it makes the US invading them and thereby starting Iraq 2.0 much less likely.

But I'm not going to fault the Israeli and American governments for trying to stop them either. Especially when, as noted, doing it via a cyberattack is option that has the least likelihood of causing loss of life while still having a chance of working.

[Purple]

But I'm not going to fault the Israeli and American governments for trying to stop them either.

And why NOT fault them? Explain please.

[Simon_Jester]

Because reasonable people expect countries to do things about threats.

Iran considers other countries, especially the US, to be scary. They would want to take steps to prevent that. If I were in their shoes I know I'd want a nuclear deterrent. I don't think they have to be bad people to want that and work on it.

For everyone who might get targeted by Iranian nuclear attacks, an Iranian nuclear arsenal is scary. There's some doubt about how stable their government is or whether they can keep control of the nuclear force in stable, responsible hands. The program makes certain countries nervous. The people that run those countries, they would want to take steps to prevent that. If I were in their shoes I know I'd want to delay the creation of an Iranian nuclear deterrent, within reason. I don't think they have to be bad people to want that and work on it.

Turnabout is fair play- either everyone has the right to seek their own security, even in ways that impinge a bit on the security of others, or no one has that right.

Is computer hacking excessive, impinging too much? Maybe- but at least it's less deadly and terrible than dropping bombs on people.

[Dark Hellion]

For everyone who might get targeted by Iranian nuclear attacks, an Iranian nuclear arsenal is scary. There's some doubt about how stable their government is or whether they can keep control of the nuclear force in stable, responsible hands. The program makes certain countries nervous. The people that run those countries, they would want to take steps to prevent that. If I were in their shoes I know I'd want to delay the creation of an Iranian nuclear deterrent, within reason. I don't think they have to be bad people to want that and work on it.

To add some anecdotal support to what Simon is saying here, one of my fellow grad students is Iranian and she has expressed her personal concern about Iran's ability to sit at the "nuclear table" with countries like the U.S. and Russia. So, this isn't some unfounded concern because the U.S. doesn't get along with Iran but has more to do with the nature of Iranian politics and general distrust in the ability of the government to handle this kind of responsibility.

Now personally, I think the Iranian government has far too much vested interest in survival to do anything stupid with nuclear weapons but I do not know enough about how the factionalism in Iran operates to be comfortable with just giving them nukes. On the other hand if their nuclear programs are just to develop nuclear power, as some have claimed, I have no problem with that but I have my doubts that this is an entirely truthful claim given that Stuxnet deliberately targeted centrifuges that are far more needed for development of nuclear armament compared to the development of nuclear reactors.

Was Stuxnet a good thing? Really, I don't think you can call any kind of attack upon another nation a good thing but I do think that it was a far better option than what was the previous (and occasionally still ongoing) MO of assassinating scientists and threatening air strikes. I think it would be better if the U.S., Israel, Iran and other interested parties could sit down and have a proper discussion without the rhetoric and posturing of the West and the obfuscation of Iran but there is too much bad blood to expect that. Like most international politics this is a far more complex situation than simply labeling one side the good guys and the other side the bad guys and trying to suss out who is worse is far less important than actually coming up with solutions that are palatable to both sides.

Which ties to a tangential thing that has really been pissing me off about N&P lately, which is this incessant need to portray all problems as some grand ideological battle between the oppressed and oppressor. While understanding the history of some conflict is a great way not to repeat it, it isn't always the way to get to a solution and often has the unintended consequence of rendering a black and white world view from which a realistic solution cannot be gotten because lets face it, countries tend to be assholes regardless of power. Sometimes you have to have an idea how to solve the problem first before you can assign the blame and sometimes the 'good guys' can have made just as healthy a contribution to the problem arising as the 'bad guys'. Attempting to portray everything as a conflict between opposing forces misses that sometimes conflicts arise between forces of comparable moral or legal culpability over amoral ideological differences.

[Enigma]

I'm surprised there's not a lot of coverage over Flame or the lesser known Wiper viruses used against Iran. Flame seems a lot more complicated and potentially more dangerous than Stuxnet.

[Phantasee]

For everyone who might get targeted by Iranian nuclear attacks, an Iranian nuclear arsenal is scary. There's some doubt about how stable their government is or whether they can keep control of the nuclear force in stable, responsible hands. The program makes certain countries nervous. The people that run those countries, they would want to take steps to prevent that. If I were in their shoes I know I'd want to delay the creation of an Iranian nuclear deterrent, within reason. I don't think they have to be bad people to want that and work on it.

To add some anecdotal support to what Simon is saying here, one of my fellow grad students is Iranian and she has expressed her personal concern about Iran's ability to sit at the "nuclear table" with countries like the U.S. and Russia. So, this isn't some unfounded concern because the U.S. doesn't get along with Iran but has more to do with the nature of Iranian politics and general distrust in the ability of the government to handle this kind of responsibility.

Now personally, I think the Iranian government has far too much vested interest in survival to do anything stupid with nuclear weapons but I do not know enough about how the factionalism in Iran operates to be comfortable with just giving them nukes. On the other hand if their nuclear programs are just to develop nuclear power, as some have claimed, I have no problem with that but I have my doubts that this is an entirely truthful claim given that Stuxnet deliberately targeted centrifuges that are far more needed for development of nuclear armament compared to the development of nuclear reactors.

I take issue with your phrasing. We are "just giving them nukes"; Iran is developing them (or not) on their own, with their own resources and expertise. It's a little patronising to say it this way.

[Dark Hellion]

For everyone who might get targeted by Iranian nuclear attacks, an Iranian nuclear arsenal is scary. There's some doubt about how stable their government is or whether they can keep control of the nuclear force in stable, responsible hands. The program makes certain countries nervous. The people that run those countries, they would want to take steps to prevent that. If I were in their shoes I know I'd want to delay the creation of an Iranian nuclear deterrent, within reason. I don't think they have to be bad people to want that and work on it.

To add some anecdotal support to what Simon is saying here, one of my fellow grad students is Iranian and she has expressed her personal concern about Iran's ability to sit at the "nuclear table" with countries like the U.S. and Russia. So, this isn't some unfounded concern because the U.S. doesn't get along with Iran but has more to do with the nature of Iranian politics and general distrust in the ability of the government to handle this kind of responsibility.

Now personally, I think the Iranian government has far too much vested interest in survival to do anything stupid with nuclear weapons but I do not know enough about how the factionalism in Iran operates to be comfortable with just giving them nukes. On the other hand if their nuclear programs are just to develop nuclear power, as some have claimed, I have no problem with that but I have my doubts that this is an entirely truthful claim given that Stuxnet deliberately targeted centrifuges that are far more needed for development of nuclear armament compared to the development of nuclear reactors.

I take issue with your phrasing. We are "just giving them nukes"; Iran is developing them (or not) on their own, with their own resources and expertise. It's a little patronising to say it this way.

Give them nukes is a common thing that has been said by such posters as Elfdart repeatedly in past threads on the subject and was the point I was referencing because of the current state of Iranian governance. Considering that Iran's political landscape has been changing quite quickly over the last few years it is highly possible that more transparent and less factionalized leaders could come into power which would ease this concern and could happen naturally alongside weapon development. In which case I would have far fewer concerns with Iran joining the 'nuclear club'.

I think that there should be some expectation that your ideological enemies will try to sabotage your nuclear programs. Its not like the U.S. and Soviets did not try such things. Its par for the course in this arena and I think it is a bit silly to pretend like the U.S. and Israel are being especially big bullies as opposed to things just going how they normally go in this situation and its really just that the U.S. and Israel have soiled their image with bad political decisions over the last decade or so and lots of kneejerk anti-x sentiment has been developed. Which frankly, considering that this board is supposed to be about logic and reasoning shouldn't interfere with discussion but lets face it, the left is no better than the right in wanting a simplified boogeyman to blame for problems instead of nuanced discussion.

[Simon_Jester]

Which ties to a tangential thing that has really been pissing me off about N&P lately, which is this incessant need to portray all problems as some grand ideological battle between the oppressed and oppressor. While understanding the history of some conflict is a great way not to repeat it, it isn't always the way to get to a solution and often has the unintended consequence of rendering a black and white world view from which a realistic solution cannot be gotten because lets face it, countries tend to be assholes regardless of power. Sometimes you have to have an idea how to solve the problem first before you can assign the blame and sometimes the 'good guys' can have made just as healthy a contribution to the problem arising as the 'bad guys'. Attempting to portray everything as a conflict between opposing forces misses that sometimes conflicts arise between forces of comparable moral or legal culpability over amoral ideological differences.

This is why I try to stick to a "turnabout is fair play" paradigm, not an "oppressor/oppressed" paradigm.

I get tired of hearing people on the far right pretend that countries they don't like have no right to do anything ever to make the world less dangerous for themselves. I've gotten almost as tired over the past few years of hearing people on the far left doing the same thing. International crises are, often as not, not a question of rights. It is often a question of trying to work out some kind of quasi-civil settlement between two sides so that they can stop the macho chest-thumping and mutual atrocities long enough to get back to some kind of sane, normal relations.

[Block]

International crises are, often as not, not a question of rights.

This kinda is: Iran have been repeating "peaceful nuclear technology is our inalienable legal right" so much that backing off of that wouldn't be politically acceptable. It's become a matter of pride for them as much as anything else.

The fact that we've agreed about that right, in principle, is probably why the talks are still going.

But the fact that we haven't indicated a willingness to back off on sanctions are why there isn't an agreement yet. (which I think is more an issue of US politics than anything else; Obama doesn't want to look "weak" in an election year.)

No, it's because Iran isn't really going about the process in an open manner and because they're not working on a program that could only be used for peaceful nuclear tech, which is certainly something that they have the capability to do. There's no reason for the US or anyone else to back off while Iran continues to say one thing and do another.

[Magis]

That's simply not true.

Yes it is, which is why Iran has already been found to be in non-compliance with the NPT by the IAEA. And for nuclear power technology, one needn't enrich to LEU or even anything approaching LEU (there are peaceful reasons to want LEU, but nuclear power isn't one of them.)

[EDIT] As an aside, in general I'd say that only the most stable nations have a right to nuclear weapons. With any nation that is reasonably prone to revolution, it's uncertain whose hands those weapons would fall into afterwards.