3 ms·
Right, but I'm assuming that there are controls over nuclear control machines. That would seem to render this method of "attack" rather impractical unless you h
by docgnome 16y ago
Right, but I'm assuming that there are controls over nuclear control machines. That would seem to render this method of "attack" rather impractical unless you had an inside man. In which case it seems a rather round about method of sabotage vs just planting a bomb or yanking some wires or something.
- azernik 16y agoFrom the article, speculation is that the virus was embedded on the USB drive of a contractor who works on multiple setups, possibly without his or her knowledge; one of the virus's most interesting features is that it can then spread, without user intervention, as soon as the USB drive is plugged into a vulnerable machine, and from that machine can spread onto other USB drives plugged in later. It doesn't take an inside man - only an inside snippet of code, which you can foist on an unsuspecting worker or consultant. Also, the chain of transmission can be indirect, so that even if you can't get a physical item into the target, you can plant it somewhere else where it eventually spread to the target (only so many degrees of separation between any two power plants, it seems)
- docgnome 16y agoThe problem I have is that a contractor should not be allowed to bring in a USB dongle to plug into a machine onside. Hell the machines shouldn't have accessible USB ports at all. My other problem is that even if they are allowed to plug their personal USB stick into a machine, control computers should be completely isolated from the machines a random contractor would have access to. I mean seriously? Why would they even be able to talk to one another?