5 ms·

Holy shit. Stuxnet was just confirmed as being developed by the US and Israel.

by pbrook 14y ago

est 14y ago
This is sad. China has one more strong execuse to buff its national firewall.
- ars 14y ago
  Why is it sad? I'd prefer a cyberwar over a physical one. And in any case the Chinese national firewall is utterly useless for preventing this.
  - johnchristopher 14y ago
    It's all fun and games until a nuclear plant blows up. I know, nuclear plant don't blow up, but you get my point.
    - ars 14y ago
      > but you get my point. No I don't. A physical war can also blow things up. How is a cyberwar worse? This is not a game, it's a covert attack.
      - johnchristopher 14y ago
        I didn't say it was worse or better. My point is: "cyberwar" can be responsible for painful and "real" physical damage in the physical world. In that regard it is in no way "better" than the "usual/conventionnal" physical wars.
        ars 14y ago
        > can be responsible for painful and "real" physical damage in the physical world Well of course, that's the entire point! They are not trying to do entirely virtual actions à la Star Trek's A Taste of Armageddon. However, you have to concede that at least so far the physical damage is far lower, and therefor unlike you I do regard it as better.
      - pooriaazimi 14y ago
        Imagine I could blow MasterCard and every single bit of data they possess up. Its consequences are worse than 15 nuclear bombs.
        krschultz 14y ago
        Really? Lets say you did blow Mastercard up. Worst case, the government prints money to pay off all the debts (a 'bailout' if you will). We've done this for far less than a cyber attack. There is some inflation, a lot of hand wringing about cyber security, and the world goes on. GDP might drop a bit, maybe it triggers a recession, but a year later we're back on our feet. 15 nuclear bombs could kill millions of people. Entire cities could be wiped out with 300+ years of history, architecture, irreplacable museum artifacts, etc. People in general would flee cities en mass. It would fundamentally shake the country and likely lead to the US retaliating in a nuclear war, or at least a large scale general war not seen since WW2. The US would probably roll a million man plus army across the middle east or north korea to destroy whatever country allowed the bombs to be built. That war would not be the (relatively) white gloved affair that are the current rules of engagement. I understand hyperbole, but that statement is just false.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 14y ago
    > I'd prefer a cyberwar over a physical one As long as we heed the lesson from Star Trek, episode 23, "A Taste of Armageddon" and don't make cyberwars so clean that no one bothers to end them.
- cmelbye 14y ago
  What? Their "national firewall" is for censorship of certain websites, what does that have to do with this?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
josteink 14y ago
This really makes you wonder at what point do you go from calling something "some digital nudging about between nations" to "war". To me this seems to qualify as terrorism and sabotage on all accounts. I'm pretty sure I know how the US would react if they had been on the receiving end of this sort of attack.
- nyellin 14y ago
  I don't know about the states, but we (Israel) have been on the receiving end of actual terrorism and sabotage through Iranian proxy groups. Stuxnet seems mild compared to funding suicide bombings.
  - sleepyhead 14y ago
    And Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
    - nyellin 14y ago
      I could be wrong, but I don't think this is speculation: * Iran funds Hezbolla: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_Hezbollah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_Hezbollah * Iran funds the Islamic Jihad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Organization * Iran funds Hamas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations#Iranian_Funding_of_Hamas_and_Hezbollah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations#I... * Example of suicide bombing by the Islamic Jihad: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145621/Family-Daniel-Wultz-awarded-332M-judgement-Iran-Syria-Israeli-suicide-bombing.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145621/Family-Danie... I understand this is a highly-loaded political issue in the states, but, for Israel, Iranian funded terrorism is a threat in and of itself, nuclear weapon or not.
      - derrida 14y ago
        Both sides commit terrorism, where terrorism is defined as "politically motivated violence against civilians".
bcn 14y ago
"...is based on interviews...with current and former American, European and Israeli officials... None would allow their names to be used..." Not exactly confirmed, but at least there are a few more details being (intentionally?) leaked. Good ole NYT is always ready to spill the words of unnamed 'officials', but the more interesting question is why, or why now?
steelaz 14y ago
Didn't Pentagon said last year that they would consider cyber attacks as acts of war?
- rwallace 14y ago
  Yes. That position has now pretty much lost credibility, which in my view is no bad thing. I've had the good fortune to never experience actual war, but I'm pretty sure nobody with such experience, is in the slightest doubt about the difference between that and sabotaging computers, however annoying the latter might be. If cyber-conflict is going to take place, I think it's in everyone's interest to keep it at that level and stop it spilling over into war.

Holy shit. Stuxnet was just confirmed as being developed by the US and Israel.

by pbrook 14y ago

Holy shit. Stuxnet was just confirmed as being developed by the US and Israel.

est 14y ago

This is sad. China has one more strong execuse to buff its national firewall.

ars 14y ago
Why is it sad? I'd prefer a cyberwar over a physical one. And in any case the Chinese national firewall is utterly useless for preventing this.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  It's all fun and games until a nuclear plant blows up. I know, nuclear plant don't blow up, but you get my point.
  - ars 14y ago
    > but you get my point. No I don't. A physical war can also blow things up. How is a cyberwar worse? This is not a game, it's a covert attack.
    - johnchristopher 14y ago
      I didn't say it was worse or better. My point is: "cyberwar" can be responsible for painful and "real" physical damage in the physical world. In that regard it is in no way "better" than the "usual/conventionnal" physical wars.
      - ars 14y ago
        > can be responsible for painful and "real" physical damage in the physical world Well of course, that's the entire point! They are not trying to do entirely virtual actions à la Star Trek's A Taste of Armageddon. However, you have to concede that at least so far the physical damage is far lower, and therefor unlike you I do regard it as better.
    - pooriaazimi 14y ago
      Imagine I could blow MasterCard and every single bit of data they possess up. Its consequences are worse than 15 nuclear bombs.
      - krschultz 14y ago
        Really? Lets say you did blow Mastercard up. Worst case, the government prints money to pay off all the debts (a 'bailout' if you will). We've done this for far less than a cyber attack. There is some inflation, a lot of hand wringing about cyber security, and the world goes on. GDP might drop a bit, maybe it triggers a recession, but a year later we're back on our feet. 15 nuclear bombs could kill millions of people. Entire cities could be wiped out with 300+ years of history, architecture, irreplacable museum artifacts, etc. People in general would flee cities en mass. It would fundamentally shake the country and likely lead to the US retaliating in a nuclear war, or at least a large scale general war not seen since WW2. The US would probably roll a million man plus army across the middle east or north korea to destroy whatever country allowed the bombs to be built. That war would not be the (relatively) white gloved affair that are the current rules of engagement. I understand hyperbole, but that statement is just false.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 14y ago
  > I'd prefer a cyberwar over a physical one As long as we heed the lesson from Star Trek, episode 23, "A Taste of Armageddon" and don't make cyberwars so clean that no one bothers to end them.
cmelbye 14y ago
What? Their "national firewall" is for censorship of certain websites, what does that have to do with this?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

josteink 14y ago

This really makes you wonder at what point do you go from calling something "some digital nudging about between nations" to "war". To me this seems to qualify as terrorism and sabotage on all accounts. I'm pretty sure I know how the US would react if they had been on the receiving end of this sort of attack.

nyellin 14y ago
I don't know about the states, but we (Israel) have been on the receiving end of actual terrorism and sabotage through Iranian proxy groups. Stuxnet seems mild compared to funding suicide bombings.
- sleepyhead 14y ago
  And Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
  - nyellin 14y ago
    I could be wrong, but I don't think this is speculation: * Iran funds Hezbolla: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_Hezbollah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_Hezbollah * Iran funds the Islamic Jihad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Organization * Iran funds Hamas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations#Iranian_Funding_of_Hamas_and_Hezbollah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations#I... * Example of suicide bombing by the Islamic Jihad: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145621/Family-Daniel-Wultz-awarded-332M-judgement-Iran-Syria-Israeli-suicide-bombing.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145621/Family-Danie... I understand this is a highly-loaded political issue in the states, but, for Israel, Iranian funded terrorism is a threat in and of itself, nuclear weapon or not.
    - derrida 14y ago
      Both sides commit terrorism, where terrorism is defined as "politically motivated violence against civilians".

bcn 14y ago

"...is based on interviews...with current and former American, European and Israeli officials... None would allow their names to be used..." Not exactly confirmed, but at least there are a few more details being (intentionally?) leaked. Good ole NYT is always ready to spill the words of unnamed 'officials', but the more interesting question is why, or why now?

steelaz 14y ago

Didn't Pentagon said last year that they would consider cyber attacks as acts of war?

rwallace 14y ago
Yes. That position has now pretty much lost credibility, which in my view is no bad thing. I've had the good fortune to never experience actual war, but I'm pretty sure nobody with such experience, is in the slightest doubt about the difference between that and sabotaging computers, however annoying the latter might be. If cyber-conflict is going to take place, I think it's in everyone's interest to keep it at that level and stop it spilling over into war.