30 ms·
U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid
- yasp 7y agoDespite having received 18 votes in 5 hours and while never having advanced beyond page 3 on the list of trending links (position #67 currently), this piece trails behind another Times piece, "Why don't more American men take paternity leave?", which is on page 2 (position #45 currently), and which has received only 6 votes in the span of 8 hours. WTF
- rdiddly 7y agoMaybe it's because the other piece has more comments?
- dang 7y agoIt got a software penalty, probably correctly, because this topic is unfortunately more likely to lead nationalistic flamewar than thoughtful discussion. But let's try taking the penalty off and seeing. By the way, you can't derive story rank from points and submission time—HN's system is more complex than that. That's all that "WTF" means here.
- yasp 7y agoThanks for clarifying.
- noir_lord 7y agoI know you can't really talk about it in detail but that sounds like an interesting way of filtering posts. Which is a shame because I'm sure it is fascinating.
- kindof-bullshit 7y agoA "software" penalty. Okay, Dan. Why don't you just come out and say someone modded it, rather than hide behind the veil of some dubious natural language processing or ratio analysis. That's like blaming the dog for a fart. The truth is that everyone operating HN would rather keep users in the dark about how and why stories land where they do. The idea being that if we could predict what the software might do, we'd try to manipulate the narrative, and if we knew when the hand of god intervened we might dare blaspheme. But that gives up the truth anyway, because if we cannot know what "the software" will do, then we are prevented from knowing such facts, only in service to a false narrative, and that, in and of itself, is an unnatural intervention and willful deception.
- dang 7y agoI didn't say someone modded it because someone didn't mod it—unless you consider writing code modding, which is not how most of us use those words. When the software does a thing I say the software did it. When moderators do a thing I say moderators did it. Who knew that was controversial?
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago> The truth is that everyone operating HN would rather keep users in the dark about how and why stories land where they do Well, yeah. Did you think that was a secret?
- sapilla 7y agoA ranking is not a story and humans are unnatural. You make unfounded assumptions. Who prevented you from asking how the rankings work?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago> It got a software penalty In other words, HN is not ranking posts by votes, but by some (presumably handcrafted) algorithm that shapes which topics are more likely to make it to the front page. TIL.
- dang 7y agoAll our software is proudly handcrafted. This is how HN has always worked. There are three components to the system: community, software, and moderation. You need all three in order to keep a place like this functioning. None of this is secret; we post about it all the time and are happy to answer questions.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- true_tuna 7y agoHoly crap. This is huge news. Isn’t a cyber attack on critical infrastructure kind of an act of war? I’m not sure how wise this course of action is.
- holoduke 7y agoIt's part of a larger game these nations are playing. There will not be a war between Russia and the US. Not with China who is ultimately the enemy of both Russia and the US. These incidents are meant to keep each other awake.
- mycall 7y agoThis depends. If blackouts start happening, the situation could escalate to war pretty fast.
- yasp 7y agoPlus, what if multiple state actors penetrate a system and each lay their own "implants"? Mutually assuredly destruction only works if you can attribute an attack. Unless you're planning on destroying non-guilty actors too. What if NK, China, and Russia all hack the same system and then eventually the system fails catastrophically as a result of malware and no one takes credit. How could the US respond? What if the perpetrator were an adversary that wasn't even known to have penetrated the system?
- mirimir 7y agoTrue. The perpetrator could be some kid, doing it for lulz. Edit: As in "WarGames".
- jacquesm 7y agoIt sets the stage for a false flag operation where the Chinese disable Russia's power infrastructure making it look like it was America.
- pmoriarty 7y ago"For the past year, energy companies in the United States and oil and gas operators across North America discovered their networks had been examined by the same Russian hackers who successfully dismantled the safety systems in 2017 at Petro Rabigh, a Saudi petrochemical plant and oil refinery." Why are these systems even connected to the internet? Decades ago, creating such connections might have been a forgivable oversight, since the internet was a much more peaceful place, and the idea of cyberattacks might have seemed like paranoid science fiction. Today such attacks are happening in front of our noses and these systems are still connected to the internet? It really boggles the mind.
- PatrolX 7y agoInternet connected or not they'll always be vulnerable.
- noir_lord 7y agoMore or less vulnerable is the question though. Given the state of play with security, a connection to the internet is pretty much going to always be more vulnerable.
- Phlarp 7y agoThis is about nation state adversaries. There should be no illusions that they laugh at people who think they are safe behind air gaps and routinely cross them. Often both infiltrating and exfiltrating data.
- solarkraft 7y agoWould you prefer systems being very easy to attack or very hard?
- archy_ 7y agoYou can have easy to administer systems that are also secure. It's not mutually exclusive.
- PatrolX 7y agoLet's try a different question. How crazy is Putin? He's getting old, maybe he wants to go out with a bang? A really big global nuclear bang. Just a thought.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- noir_lord 7y ago> Just a thought. I see this put at the end of crazy conjecture posts more often than I'd expect, why do you personally do it?
- m0zg 7y agoArticle provides zero evidence or any other kind of corroboration to the claims made. NYT is fake news.
- pessimizer 7y agoLess fake news than an openly credulous outlet for strategic US intelligence agency leaks attributed to "anonymous government officials."
- molteanu 7y agoIt probably is. Don't know why you got down-voted.
- techntoke 7y agoYou know how American press releases go lately. Reminds me of the efforts leading up to the Iraq war. Or the "deal" that was made with Mexico that is basically a PR effort with little to no actual action. Gotta keep those ratings as high as possible.
- molteanu 7y agoI don't understand a single bit from this article.
- jessaustin 7y agoRational people are often confused by the war media's agitation for war. The reason for the confusion is they are lying to us. Whenever I'm confused by the war media, I conclude they must be trying to start another war. They're pressing this button too often, though. Compare the results in Syria to those in Libya...
- artiste 7y agoGenuinely asking: what is their motive behind this?
- jessaustin 7y agoAssuming "their" refers to the war media, motives vary. Younger folks are just trying not to get fired. (Those who haven't even gotten hired yet have to cultivate a very careful Twitter persona even to be considered.) More experienced journalists can't get frozen out by official sources, whether that's the spooks, the brass, the lobbyist-owned politicians, or the surveillance-owned politicians. Editors/producers/executives have to worry about pissing off big advertisers. Lots of people on the talking-head shows are think-tankers, intellectually totally beholden to whatever shadowy reptiles have funded their sinecures and sabbaticals. Even if motives went the other way, at this point habit keeps them doing their masters' bidding, as witnessed by the schizophrenia regarding Julian Assange. But, really, asking about motives is just another way to ignore this. Motives will always be squishy and deniable. Look at what actually happens. They lied us into Vietnam with the Tonkin Gulf Deception. They lied us into the First Gulf War with the incubator babies. They lied us into the Second Gulf War with WMDs. We went to war in Afghanistan and Osama turned out to be in Pakistan. They lied us into Libya with some random exiles living in Switzerland plus a French philosopher. They lied us into Syria (thankfully not all the way) with gas attacks staged by our ally Al-Qaeda. They're trying to lie us into Venezuela with a recession caused by our own sanctions plus staged attacks on soi-disant "aid convoys". Now they're trying to justify a war with Iran with a video of CIA operatives in a boat. If you prefer older history, "remember the Maine!" was also a lie.
- tehjoker 7y agoThe USG is insane. The evidence of Russian interference in our elections is not that impressive and it probably didn't have much impact (compared with Clinton sending American advisors and billions to Yeltsin in the 90s). Instead, to paper over the decrepit nature of the American political system, they are attacking civilian infrastructure in a nuclear armed nation. Insanity.
- imchillyb 7y ago> ... to paper over the decrepit nature of the American political system, they are attacking civilian infrastructure in a nuclear armed nation. @tehjoker Uh, I think what you /really/ mean is: In retaliation to numerous US Network Infrastructure incursions -from the same entity- the US has attempted their own software implantation within the attacker's networks. Fixed that for ya! ;) _____ Also, from the article itself which you apparently didn't read: """ Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place “implants” — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid. Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister. Because the new law defines the actions in cyberspace as akin to traditional military activity on the ground, in the air or at sea, no such briefing would be necessary, they added. """
- equalunique 7y agoWhen Trump's base says that "the deep state" is trying to start a war between the US and Russia, it's quotes like these that will be used to bolster their claims.
- sapilla 7y agoWould they be wrong? Edit: AFAICT both sides are "technically not wrong", homomorphic to the basic "free speech" argument, "it's technically not illegal". I'm a bit flabberghasted that no one has constructed an ironclad technological solution to this wishy-washy dance of weak arguments, backed up by rhyme but not reason. Proof verifiers should come to politics.
- _iyig 7y ago“So far, there is no evidence that the United States has actually turned off the power in any of the efforts to establish what American officials call a “persistent presence” inside Russian networks, just as the Russians have not turned off power in the United States.” The NYT decision to frame these efforts as “attacks” rather than “infiltration” is certainly an interesting one. In essence, the U.S. has built a (digital) mutually-assured destruction deterrent. We wouldn’t refer to past nuclear drills or tests as “attacks” on Russia, so I find the use of that phrase here intriguing. I assume they simply borrowed the vocabulary of security researchers, knowing that it would mean something different to much of their readership.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y agoSince they're actively planting stuff in their systems, I consider calling it an attack appropriate. That's not "testing nukes in your own desert", that is "sneaking into someone's factories and planting bombs", if we're looking for an analogy. And I'm surprised that this is openly admitted by the US, and tolerated by both sides, instead of being treated as an act of war.
- mogadsheu 7y agoMaybe they’re both more concerned with attacks from terrorist groups than from each other. The analogy would be one guy telling a colleague that his fly is down before a client meeting. They both might want the same position but an unrecognized failure would make them both look bad.
- gubbrora 7y agoMy impression is that it's easier to attack than to defend or detect. That would make the country who doesn't attack a sucker. So treating it as an act of war isn't viable.
- emXdem 7y agoThe New York Times has a trash editorial board. Fuck them with a barbed instrument made of lava.
- gbuk2013 7y agoWonderful. What better way to drive home the message that the Russian government’s strategy of control over internet and Great Firewall makes total sense from the POV of national security.
- gruez 7y ago>strategy of control over internet and Great Firewall makes total sense from the POV of national security How do those contribute to national security? "control over internet"/gfw aka censorship isn't going to prevent any cyberattacks.
- maehwasu 7y agoIt makes it a lot easier for the Russian gov to sell "control over the internet" to the public.
- gbuk2013 7y agoYes, and this. It’s a lot easier to sell the idea of defence against a common enemy when the enemy is actually real.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y agoIt's more of a back up system (for now?) than anything, so when things go south for them they can rely on something else. Just like gps has many alternatives by other super powers, so when American military decided to turn it off, things would still work.
- gbuk2013 7y agoThe same way that it helps prevent them in a corporate environment. I work for a security company and control over ingress and egress is absolutely a fundamental part of our network security. Same as having a centralised firewall on a corporate ISP, having a firewall on a country level can prevent / monitor traffic to whole segments of IT infrastructure.
- chupasaurus 7y ago
- emXdem 7y agoNew York Times is a trash paper. Their editorial board is ass.
- drawnwren 7y agoWhat's the workaround to the new nyt ad blocker blocker?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y agoI had no issues with uBlock Origin on Firefox
- zarriak 7y agoDo you mean anti ad-blocking or the new detection for "private" mode? It took the NYT like 6 hours after WaPo started detecting incognito mode for them to start doing the same thing. That was about a week ago. I just open chrome to read the articles but if you want to be away from google, install a firefox derivative and setup to accept trackers and the like and delete all cookies on shutdown.
- drawnwren 7y agoYeah, I use Firefox Focus on mobile and it tells me I can't view it in private mode. I'll see if I can figure out how to implement your suggestions with it. Thanks for the tip.
- TSUTiger 7y agoHere you go: https://outline.com/uRhJrw https://outline.com/uRhJrw
- dredmorbius 7y agoInteresting. NYT had been disabled on Outline for a while.
- tomjen3 7y agoAdd it to pocket, or maybe use firefox containers (I haven't actually tried that one).
- Bakary 7y ago
- tamaharbor 7y agoNo wonder why other countries don’t like the US.
- Redoubts 7y ago""" Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place “implants” — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid. Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister. Because the new law defines the actions in cyberspace as akin to traditional military activity on the ground, in the air or at sea, no such briefing would be necessary, they added. """ Way to bury the lede
- PixyMisa 7y ago"We hid this from the president because we were afraid he might issue a perfectly legal and constitutional order to stop doing it." Yes, way to bury the lede.
- jessaustin 7y agoThat damn Constitution! It actually allows a president to stop us from going to war! We never knew, because no president in living memory has dared defy MIC... (current office-holder is no exception)
- jonathankoren 7y agoSounds more like, "We hid this from the president because he's _at best_ an unwitting intelligence asset to a hostile foreign power."
- Redoubts 7y agoThe fact that both interpretations are potentially valid is particularly awful.
- akhilcacharya 7y ago"We hid this from the President because he would blab to our enemies for some reason" is absolutely a buried lede.
- mensetmanusman 7y agohttps://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1140065304019644427 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11400653040196444... Trump just accused the NYT of treason for using the word ‘attack’
- com-mecom 7y agohaha trump was also attacked indirectly
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y agoI don't understand if he is accusing them because he denies it, or is it because of wording/"for being anti-american"?
- bitL 7y agoOh yeah, let's blow up another nuclear reactor so that HBO can shoot a great sequel! /s
- com-mecom 7y agoi wonder how these people operate zixno.com
- ETHisso2017 7y agoWhat's to prevent these implants and beacons from being hacked themselves and turned on without US intent?
- myrandomcomment 7y agoThis is silly. All of these systems should be have an Air Gap. Period.
- lostmsu 7y agoYeah, tell that to the drivers of the hype train around cloud for IoT, which includes Microsoft.
- blitmap 7y agoWonderful that we can do these things during peacetime.
- billfruit 7y agoI think doing this type of work, causing possible disruption in another countries infrastructure during peace time is ethically problematic. Much more problematic that the ethically dubious things alleged on FB and Google. I hope there is some outcry against doing this type of work.
- devoply 7y agoIt's a tit-for-tat response... until some treaty is signed which forbids it and then there is follow through from Russia. US plays hard ball if the other side is not playing fairly. You can hardly blame them.
- ShorsHammer 7y agoThe US plays "fairly" in international relations? Honestly amazed if anyone truly stands by that statement. The irony of mentioning treaties too. That's some next level true believer stuff. Would love to have a chat about: * Chemical weapons convention * Mine ban treaty * Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court * Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty * Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty * Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention * Kyoto Protocol * Reneging on the Iran deal and then forcing Europe to do the same despite US intel chiefs saying Iran they held up their end of the bargain. * The half dozen worldwide commitments Trump has pulled out of in the last year, there's too many to count. American foreign intel agencies have far more funding and skills than the next 10 largest countries combined. They do not play fair nor do they have to. Anyone claiming otherwise likely doesn't know much about it or wilfully ignores it out of nationalism.
- speedplane 7y ago> The US plays "fairly" in international relations? Honestly amazed if anyone truly stands by that statement. If you consider how much power the U.S. has and how often it does not use that power to its fullest advantage, it's pretty remarkable how much it holds back.
- 7y ago
- jokoon 7y agoIt's weird, because I thought putin and trump were friends. There might be other things I'm not understanding, or that's just staged to tell the public russia and trump are not friends...
- jonathankoren 7y agoFrom the article: >Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place “implants” — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid. >Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.
- collinstevens 7y agoThrowback to Madam Secretary. On a more serious note, does the US have red teams which try pen test our own power grid and other critical infrastructure? I don't believe I've ever heard of it, but I would have to assume at least one three letter agency does it right? (I hope)
- Proven 7y agoIt's "own" to them unless the grid is state owned. Secondly, three letter agencies don't work for the citizens (in which case they might focus on defense) but for military industrial complex, so taxpayer money is spent attacking foreign countries.
- majia 7y agoI guess this explains what caused power outage in Venezuelan. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Venezuelan_blackouts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Venezuelan_blackouts
- reneberlin 7y agoWar-games, anybody?! I just can't elaborate how stupid this kind of game is.
- rapjr9 7y agoWhat happens to quality assurance when malware starts modifying systems? When malware starts modifying systems that have already been modified by other malware? Seems like a mutual game of Russian Roulette. Any attack that is not perfectly executed risks harming the system, even if the malware is never activated. This happens all the time with software upgrades that have been vetted. Are the spies doing regression analysis on the effects of their implants to make sure they don't accidentally break something?