5 ms·

It’s strange this article effectively pins the attack on Iran, but doesn’t mention Stuxnet/Olympic Games, a malware attack on Iran that destroyed nearly 1,000 o

It’s strange this article effectively pins the attack on Iran, but doesn’t mention Stuxnet/Olympic Games, a malware attack on Iran that destroyed nearly 1,000 of their centrifuges[1]. 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/stuxnet-was-work-of-us-and-israeli-experts-officials-say/2012/06/01/gJQAlnEy6U_story.html?utm_term=.517d10e8bc25 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/stuxn...

dredmorbius 9y ago
Or, another related attack by the CIA against the USSR resulting in a catastrophic natural gas explosion. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1455559/CIA-plot-led-to-huge-blast-in-Siberian-gas-pipeline.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/...
azinman2 9y ago
Why is that strange?
- salimmadjd 9y ago
  It's strange because one is seen as a retaliation and the other as preemptive aggression. Retaliation is more tolerable than preemptive aggression to many people. It's very important in this context, because the article goes out of its way to try to point the finger to Iran, but it fails to establish the context. That it was not only attacked on its Nuclear facilities, but also had cyberattack on its oil facilities via the "Flame" malware [0] Which if this was an Iranian attack makes it a retaliation. [0] http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/flame-virus-hit-iran-s-oil-industry-but-officials-say-antidote-found-1.1238954 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/flame-virus-hit-iran-s-oil...
  - dqpb 9y ago
    >one is seen as a retaliation and the other as preemptive aggression I don't think so. This fire has been burning for a very long time.
  - azinman2 9y ago
    How is it a relaliation, which still is far from ethical, if it was to Saudi Arabia, and a non-military building at that?
    - abiox 9y ago
      > How is it a retaliation well, there is plenty of bad blood and a history of conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Saudi_Arabia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Saudi_Arabia_relations this is just one more event to add to the record.
      - azinman2 9y ago
        But stuxnet has not been attributed to Saudis, but Israel + US, so I’m not following this chain.
        abiox 9y ago
        saudi is a longtime ally to the us, each offering material support to ther other in conflicts that have involved iran, it's allies or it's interests. it also seems unlikely to me that saudi intelligence and other forms of support were not utilized in the planning, development and deployment of stuxnet (among other things).
        azinman2 9y ago
        What about UK? NZ? Kurds? US has many allies, but that doesn’t mean they’re involved in stuxnet. In fact, operationally you’re more likely to fail or leak the more hands you have in the pie. Saudis aren’t known for their technological prowess as much as Israel, so none of this makes sense to me.
        abiox 9y ago
        there's more than the context of merely being an ally, it's being a "close" ally in the region; one with a history of direct and indirect conflict. nobody knows if saudi was involved, and i'm not saying they definitely were, but it seems rather unlikely that there was no assistance at least with regard to intelligence and other ancillary-ish things. even so, the notion of "retaliation" in the scope of clandestine conflict and power struggle is very nebulous, as geopolitics has many layers. if nothing else, saudi is almost certainly a much more ideal target of opportunity than the US due to it's being a nearby direct competitor for regional influence. and even if saudi really had zero involvement with stuxnet (seems unlikely to me), they've definitely had allied involvement with other activities that worked against iran or it's interests.
username223 9y ago
The article was already long enough as-is (I think it ran in the print edition, too). The fact that we know Israel did something similar to Iran's centrifuges is a bit far afield, since they have no apparent beef with Saudi chemical refineries. With several countries probably able and willing to kill people with cyber-attacks, it's probably not long before an attack succeeds, blurring the distinction between cyber and "real" war.
- yazan94 9y ago
  > The article was already long enough as-is (I think it ran in the print edition, too). The fact that we know Israel did something similar to Iran's centrifuges is a bit far afield, since they have no apparent beef with Saudi chemical refineries. From the Iranian perspective, it might be easy for them to group the USA with Israel and Saudi Arabia as quasi-enemies and not have a cared-for distinction. Especially since policies and actions by all 3 countries have been, at best, not aligned with Iranian interests and - at worst - belligerent to Iran. I really would disagree that the Stuxnet incident is irrelevant if Iran is indeed responsible.
achileas 9y ago
I don't think an article about one thing not talking about another thing is really that strange.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Personally, I don't want Iran to develop its nuclear progam; however, there are legitimate concerns that such cyber attacks set precedent, or even could expose security flaws, that might instigate retaliatory attacks towards the US and its allies.
- DennisP 9y ago
  The article didn't just talk about the Saudi attack. It gave an overview of the history of similar attacks. Stuxnet was arguably the most significant of those, and it's especially relevant since they're blaming Iran for this attack.
  - orbat 9y ago
    They're not reporting on it, because it was done by the Good People™. They try to paint this activity as something that only Bad People™ do.
- adultSwim 9y ago
  Yes. Context matters.
cat199 9y ago
welcome to "how the media subtly shapes public opinion" and "editorial bias" :)
haroldp 9y ago
I came to the comments to see if anyone else was bothered by this glaring omission. The lede is that this cyber attack didn't just delete files, it caused real world physical damage. > The attack was a dangerous escalation in international cyberwarfare, as faceless enemies demonstrated both the drive and the ability to inflict serious physical damage. Can you reasonably call this an "escalation" after Stuxnet? Maybe? But not even mentioning Stuxnet? At best, that seems like poor reporting.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  I think there is an important distinction here. See: > It was meant to sabotage the firm’s operations and trigger an explosion. This seems quite different than Stuxnet, which was very carefully created for a specific purpose of damaging centrifuges at an Iranian nuclear enrichment facility in a very quiet manner, not causing explosions.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Or, another related attack by the CIA against the USSR resulting in a catastrophic natural gas explosion. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1455559/CIA-plot-led-to-huge-blast-in-Siberian-gas-pipeline.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/...

azinman2 9y ago

Why is that strange?

salimmadjd 9y ago
It's strange because one is seen as a retaliation and the other as preemptive aggression. Retaliation is more tolerable than preemptive aggression to many people. It's very important in this context, because the article goes out of its way to try to point the finger to Iran, but it fails to establish the context. That it was not only attacked on its Nuclear facilities, but also had cyberattack on its oil facilities via the "Flame" malware [0] Which if this was an Iranian attack makes it a retaliation. [0] http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/flame-virus-hit-iran-s-oil-industry-but-officials-say-antidote-found-1.1238954 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/flame-virus-hit-iran-s-oil...
- dqpb 9y ago
  >one is seen as a retaliation and the other as preemptive aggression I don't think so. This fire has been burning for a very long time.
- azinman2 9y ago
  How is it a relaliation, which still is far from ethical, if it was to Saudi Arabia, and a non-military building at that?
  - abiox 9y ago
    > How is it a retaliation well, there is plenty of bad blood and a history of conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Saudi_Arabia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Saudi_Arabia_relations this is just one more event to add to the record.
    - azinman2 9y ago
      But stuxnet has not been attributed to Saudis, but Israel + US, so I’m not following this chain.
      - abiox 9y ago
        saudi is a longtime ally to the us, each offering material support to ther other in conflicts that have involved iran, it's allies or it's interests. it also seems unlikely to me that saudi intelligence and other forms of support were not utilized in the planning, development and deployment of stuxnet (among other things).
        azinman2 9y ago
        What about UK? NZ? Kurds? US has many allies, but that doesn’t mean they’re involved in stuxnet. In fact, operationally you’re more likely to fail or leak the more hands you have in the pie. Saudis aren’t known for their technological prowess as much as Israel, so none of this makes sense to me.
        abiox 9y ago
        there's more than the context of merely being an ally, it's being a "close" ally in the region; one with a history of direct and indirect conflict. nobody knows if saudi was involved, and i'm not saying they definitely were, but it seems rather unlikely that there was no assistance at least with regard to intelligence and other ancillary-ish things. even so, the notion of "retaliation" in the scope of clandestine conflict and power struggle is very nebulous, as geopolitics has many layers. if nothing else, saudi is almost certainly a much more ideal target of opportunity than the US due to it's being a nearby direct competitor for regional influence. and even if saudi really had zero involvement with stuxnet (seems unlikely to me), they've definitely had allied involvement with other activities that worked against iran or it's interests.

username223 9y ago

The article was already long enough as-is (I think it ran in the print edition, too). The fact that we know Israel did something similar to Iran's centrifuges is a bit far afield, since they have no apparent beef with Saudi chemical refineries. With several countries probably able and willing to kill people with cyber-attacks, it's probably not long before an attack succeeds, blurring the distinction between cyber and "real" war.

yazan94 9y ago
> The article was already long enough as-is (I think it ran in the print edition, too). The fact that we know Israel did something similar to Iran's centrifuges is a bit far afield, since they have no apparent beef with Saudi chemical refineries. From the Iranian perspective, it might be easy for them to group the USA with Israel and Saudi Arabia as quasi-enemies and not have a cared-for distinction. Especially since policies and actions by all 3 countries have been, at best, not aligned with Iranian interests and - at worst - belligerent to Iran. I really would disagree that the Stuxnet incident is irrelevant if Iran is indeed responsible.

achileas 9y ago

I don't think an article about one thing not talking about another thing is really that strange.

wallace_f 9y ago
Personally, I don't want Iran to develop its nuclear progam; however, there are legitimate concerns that such cyber attacks set precedent, or even could expose security flaws, that might instigate retaliatory attacks towards the US and its allies.
DennisP 9y ago
The article didn't just talk about the Saudi attack. It gave an overview of the history of similar attacks. Stuxnet was arguably the most significant of those, and it's especially relevant since they're blaming Iran for this attack.
- orbat 9y ago
  They're not reporting on it, because it was done by the Good People™. They try to paint this activity as something that only Bad People™ do.
adultSwim 9y ago
Yes. Context matters.

cat199 9y ago

welcome to "how the media subtly shapes public opinion" and "editorial bias" :)

haroldp 9y ago

I came to the comments to see if anyone else was bothered by this glaring omission. The lede is that this cyber attack didn't just delete files, it caused real world physical damage. > The attack was a dangerous escalation in international cyberwarfare, as faceless enemies demonstrated both the drive and the ability to inflict serious physical damage. Can you reasonably call this an "escalation" after Stuxnet? Maybe? But not even mentioning Stuxnet? At best, that seems like poor reporting.

willstrafach 9y ago
I think there is an important distinction here. See: > It was meant to sabotage the firm’s operations and trigger an explosion. This seems quite different than Stuxnet, which was very carefully created for a specific purpose of damaging centrifuges at an Iranian nuclear enrichment facility in a very quiet manner, not causing explosions.