7 ms·
More violent but also more out in the open, where stuxnet was a silent killer. (meaning it was deliberately less violent)
by Freestyler_3 8y ago
More violent but also more out in the open, where stuxnet was a silent killer. (meaning it was deliberately less violent)
- systematical 8y agoIt was pretty violent if you were a centrifuge. More targeted was stuxnet.
- jonshariat 8y agoI thought it would only slightly tweak the speeds so it would ruin the result. It didn't destroy them.
- vezycash 8y agoIt did both. Randomly breaking tubes was sure to make people jumpy, and the machines seem haunted.
- sneak 8y agoHow can software be “more violent”? How can software that isn’t running directly on a weapons platform be “violent” at all?
- cavanasm 8y agoIf the software physically destroys the hardware that is running it, I'd say that's fairly violent. Stuxnet, the virus it's being compared to, destroyed the centrifuges it infected. Sort of the issue with the "more violent" explanation so far is that Iran isn't saying how bad the damage is, and it sounds like this new virus might be hitting critical infrastructure like power systems, but no one will say anything beyond "systems are being attacked".
- bitdeveloper 8y agoTurning off or modifying automated systems in any large device - buses, cars, airplanes, centrifuges, stadium roofs - would have potential for massive violence/destruction.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- blancheneige 8y agotesla.brakes = false while(true) tesla.speed++
- ridgeguy 8y agoMedical technology: pacemakers, drug infusion pumps, digital x-ray and MRI systems ("nope, no lesions on your lungs"). Industrial materials fab: change raw materials in critical alloy mixtures; mess with annealing time/temperature recipes; dial down forces in component proof tests ("oops! Why did that turbine rotor blade separate?"). Lots of opportunities for malware to be nasty outside of weapons systems.