4 ms·

Computer Worm Hits Iran Power Plant

18 points by jedwhite 16y ago

jedwhite 16y ago
Makes you wonder if the creators of Stuxnet were spooked into trying to trigger its payload by all the coverage of it, or if it's just a coincidence that the Iranians admitted they were infected after info about it started to get out.
mindviews 16y ago
Does HN have guidelines for submitting links that are behind a paywall? I ask because I don't have a WSJ account and couldn't read the linked article - then realized I can't remember the last time I got stuck at a paywall dead end on HN. I checked the guidelines and didn't see anything. Are we supposed to flag these or just leave them alone? Thanks.
- carbocation 16y ago
  You should be able to "Google+I'm Feeling Lucky" (GIFL) that and get it with one click for free, if you would like: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Computer+Worm+Hits+Iran+Power+Plant&btnI=1 http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&#3... (Note--not positive that the above link will work. If you google the title of the article, the WSJ story is the first result, and clicking through should give it to you for free from there.)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
tommynazareth 16y ago
Yeah, right...
jedwhite 16y ago
Sorry, didn't realise it was behind the paywall. Here's the open link for the story: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704082104575515581009698978-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwNjEyNDYyWj.html http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405274870408210...
- mindviews 16y ago
  Thanks - this one works for me.
jsean 16y ago
"The U.S. would be a less likely suspect because it uses offensive cyberoperations infrequently and usually only under specific circumstances when officials are confident the operation will affect only its target, current and former U.S. officials said." I wonder what a "current or former [any country] officials" would have said other than a paraphrase of above... Really I'm not being conspiratorial here, just thinking out aloud whether quoted statement is meaningless or not.
Groxx 16y ago
"Hits" implies the worm did something. All this article mentions is that a few personal computers at the plant are infected (implying possibly more). But, then again, shock-and-awe that WSJ would sink to linkbait titles.

18 points by jedwhite 16y ago

Makes you wonder if the creators of Stuxnet were spooked into trying to trigger its payload by all the coverage of it, or if it's just a coincidence that the Iranians admitted they were infected after info about it started to get out.

mindviews 16y ago

Does HN have guidelines for submitting links that are behind a paywall? I ask because I don't have a WSJ account and couldn't read the linked article - then realized I can't remember the last time I got stuck at a paywall dead end on HN. I checked the guidelines and didn't see anything. Are we supposed to flag these or just leave them alone? Thanks.

carbocation 16y ago
You should be able to "Google+I'm Feeling Lucky" (GIFL) that and get it with one click for free, if you would like: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Computer+Worm+Hits+Iran+Power+Plant&btnI=1 http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&#3... (Note--not positive that the above link will work. If you google the title of the article, the WSJ story is the first result, and clicking through should give it to you for free from there.)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

tommynazareth 16y ago

Yeah, right...

jedwhite 16y ago

Sorry, didn't realise it was behind the paywall. Here's the open link for the story: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704082104575515581009698978-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwNjEyNDYyWj.html http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405274870408210...

mindviews 16y ago
Thanks - this one works for me.

jsean 16y ago

"The U.S. would be a less likely suspect because it uses offensive cyberoperations infrequently and usually only under specific circumstances when officials are confident the operation will affect only its target, current and former U.S. officials said." I wonder what a "current or former [any country] officials" would have said other than a paraphrase of above... Really I'm not being conspiratorial here, just thinking out aloud whether quoted statement is meaningless or not.

Groxx 16y ago

"Hits" implies the worm did something. All this article mentions is that a few personal computers at the plant are infected (implying possibly more). But, then again, shock-and-awe that WSJ would sink to linkbait titles.