Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Suspects Iran Was Behind a Wave of Cyberattacks

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the who's-to-blame dept.

Security 292

SternisheFan writes in with this Times article about more trouble brewing between the U.S. and Iran. "American intelligence officials are increasingly convinced that Iran was the origin of a serious wave of network attacks that crippled computers across the Saudi oil industry and breached financial institutions in the United States, episodes that contributed to a warning last week from Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta that the United States was at risk of a 'cyber-Pearl Harbor.' After Mr. Panetta's remarks on Thursday night, American officials described an emerging shadow war of attacks and counterattacks already under way between the United States and Iran in cyberspace. Among American officials, suspicion has focused on the 'cybercorps' that Iran's military created in 2011 — partly in response to American and Israeli cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz — though there is no hard evidence that the attacks were sanctioned by the Iranian government. The attacks emanating from Iran have inflicted only modest damage. Iran's cyberwarfare capabilities are considerably weaker than those in China and Russia, which intelligence officials believe are the sources of a significant number of probes, thefts of intellectual property and attacks on American companies and government agencies."

cancel ×

292 comments

The Golden Rule (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654099)

The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Then USA is Japan (5, Informative)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about 2 years ago | (#41654539)

If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...

Re:Then USA is Japan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654661)

Way to karma whore by posting your comment next to a first post AC without even trying to respond to the topic.

How nice of you to notice (5, Insightful)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41654737)

How perceptive. Now observe as I do the same.

I'm glad this article came up on Slashdot cause Lord knows Facebook is tired of my political commentary, and in the middle of the night too so maybe somebody will actually see my comment, and understand when I say this accusation IS COMPLETE HORSESHIT.

Iran did not launch any fucking "cyber attack." This is nothing more than a convenient excuse drummed up by the U.S. to help justify an invasion. They have been searching high and low for a good excuse for some time. Now the stage is set. When some massive cyberattack hits the U.S. (not really causing any real damage of course, at least not to anything seriously critically important) guess who will be blamed? Why, it must have been Iran! Leon Panetta with his far-rearching vision and insight pointed out not 6 months ago this might happen! Quick, to arms!

Re:How nice of you to notice (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654775)

Quick! Invade Iraq^Hn! Weapons of Mass^H^H^H^HCyberspace Destruction found by US Intelligence Services! Bring out Colin Powell^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHillary Clinton! ...?Hey does anyone know how to make those red lines in MSWord go away? Ah don't worry about it. I'll publish this now.

Who started it? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654111)

Stuxnet - It's called blow back. USA and Israel attack a country through software and then get pissed when that country retaliates.

Re:Who started it? (4, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41654497)

Iran attacked Comodo before Stuxnet was even discovered

Comodo DNS almost compromised [comodo.com]

Re:Who started it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654521)

We can go back and forth with this crap until before Islam was founded.

Re:Who started it? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654677)

The US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1954, and installed a bloody right wing dictator in an effort to control Iran's oil.

We stole their freedom so members of our parasitic upper class could profit. Iranians have every reason to hate the US, and every justification for _any_ level of retaliation.

Re:Who started it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654699)

That was the British because of BP owned the oil fields and the communist government stole them.

Re:Who started it? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654679)

And Iraq had (ahem....) WMD. Until they didn't. After hundreds of thousands of lives lost, NADA. The US and Israel start this shit and then get upset when they get payback. The Iraq "adventure" turned out to be another Vietnam. To me it's even simpler - The US and Israel will blame Iran for anything and everything these days. I wouldn't believe the US or Israel if they said the sky is blue on a clear day. What I am happy to see is that the US is spending all it's money on wars and war equipment while other countries invest in medical care, education, etc. The US isn't shooting its self in the foot, it's shooting its self in the head as corporations subdue the population. Cut the number of teachers and police and firemen, cut education in general, cut as many social programs as possible and give that money to the military and war materials producers and spy programs (which, of course, don't know shit as shown by the Iraq WMD crap). The US - All War, All the Time! Over 1/2 of all US federal taxes go to their war machine and war related activities. The US is going the way of Rome. And as the US dollar continues its decline into worthlessness, I watch and laugh.

Re:Who started it? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654503)

We act like typical bullies, we throw the first punch then when they fight back we burst into tears and claim to be the victim. If you can't take it don't dish it out.

Re:Who started it? (-1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#41654531)

Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program, and continuing threats against the Gulf states and other neighbors, Europe, the US, and Israel. Stuxnet was the blowback, these attacks are escalation. Stuxnet wouldn't have existed without the nuclear program - you'll notice it was apparently aimed at centrifuges, not at sewage treatment. The current attacks by Iran are just a part of their pattern [cfr.org] .

Nuclear [nti.org]

The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. In 2009, concerns over Tehran's nuclear program increased when Iran revealed to the IAEA that it was constructing a second enrichment facility close to the city of Qom, now known as the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. [7] In November 2011, tensions escalated further when the IAEA released a report with a 14-page annex outlining the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program, though most activities described dated to the pre-2003 period. [8] While Iran questioned the evidence in the report and the IAEA's legal authority to investigate non-nuclear activities, the report provoked a series of new sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union.

UN chief to Iran: Prove nuclear program is peaceful, cease verbal attacks on Israel [haaretz.com]

UN chief Ban Ki-moon met Iran's president and supreme leader in Tehran on Wednesday and urged them to take concrete steps to prove the country's nuclear program is peaceful. He also called on all states to stop supplying arms to the conflict in Syria, Ban's spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said.

He told reporters in New York that in separate meetings with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the secretary-general further said that he considered their latest verbal attacks on Israel to be offensive, inflammatory and unacceptable. . . .

"On the nuclear question ... he said that he regretted that little tangible progress has been achieved so far," Nesirky, speaking by telephone from Tehran, told reporters in New York.

"He said that Iran needed to take concrete steps to address the concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency and prove to the world that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes," Nesirky said.

STAKES ARE HIGH FOR EU DIPLOMACY IN IRANIAN NUCLEAR CRISIS [europeaninstitute.org]

In the last six months, the enduring tension between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program has escalated dangerously. Tension notched up last November with a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): the report by the UN nuclear watchdog marked a break with past findings by expressing in very stark terms, and through extensive documentation, its serious concern that Iran had previously pursued nuclear weapons work. . .

“ – The so-called E3, the U.K., France and Germany: All three are much more inclined than the U.S. to believe that Iran is seeking to weaponize its uranium stockpiles. They have more experience negotiating with Iran as well, and that experience has taught them not to allow Tehran any wiggle room. France in particular has been pushing for a hard line: a full and complete halt to Iran’s nuclear program and the surrender of all of its uranium. “Even if they agree to hand over their 20% enriched uranium, some in Europe will argue to keep up the pressure – to not take down any of the sanctions — until they also hand over the 3.5% enriched uranium,” says a European diplomat. In other words: the Europeans don’t think confidence-building measures will work — or might allow Iran to delay and wiggle too much — and are seeking an all-or-nothing line with Tehran.

Re:Who started it? (4, Insightful)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about 2 years ago | (#41654557)

Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program

I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me. USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then? Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?

Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.

Re:Who started it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654629)

There's a treaty dumb ass that's why. It's called the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty, and Iran is a party to it and is currently in violation of it.

Re:Who started it? (3, Insightful)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41654755)

Yet Israel isn't party to this treaty at all...and they already have 200+ nuclear weapon. Why aren't we invading and threatening THEM? Iran is the only one who needs to be invaded. Why? When was the last time Iran ever invaded or attacked a country?

Re:Who started it? (1, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41654643)

For one the US is not assassinating ambassadors, has a hate to country X day, nor does it intend to wipe a country off a map, nor create pseudo terrorist armies who have no allegiance to the country their are in. Just there to attack a neighboring one and control a government against the will of its own people.

there are differences of ideological opinion (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41654751)

which is fine, this is life

but what i can not tolerate is the death defying leap into stupidity represented by people who believe iran is after only nuclear power and not after nuclear weapons

Re:Who started it? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41654763)

It would be even better if there were no nukes, but there are. The fact that the US developed and used nukes over half a century ago does not mean that everyone should have them. That's a childish way of thinking.

Re:Who started it? (1)

NerdmastaX (1749114) | about 2 years ago | (#41654785)

if you had a bomb that big would you get rid of it?

Re:Who started it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654715)

So, if Iran made up tales about Canada having Weapons of Mass Destruction and used this fantasy as a basis to bomb Canada back into the hunter gathere age and the US started covert operations to weaken Iran, you would say that the US struck first?

Pearl Harbor???? (5, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about 2 years ago | (#41654113)

"Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta that the United States was at risk of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor." "

Durring Pearl Harbor, we were unprovakably attacked.

It looks we already attacked Iran with cyber weapons and this is retaliation.

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654187)

We were already at war with the Japanese before they attacked Pearl Harbor via supporting China. It was a clandestine war, but as Shakespeare might say, a war by any other name would smell as rotten. As this article states, we were already moving chess pieces onto the Asian board before Pearl Harbor and who knows what really happened and the exact dates involved?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (5, Informative)

GPierce (123599) | about 2 years ago | (#41654323)

Actually FDR provoked the Japanese into attacking. This does not mean that the Japanese were the good guys. There were a lot of reasons why FDR wanted a war - some of them valid, but as barbaric as the Rape of Nanking was, these were not things that directly affected the US. Most US citizens were strongly against any kind of war.

Under Roosevelt, we seized Japanese bank accounts and placed a military blockade against oil shipments to Japan. We were shutting down their economy, and there is no way the Japanese were going to put up with this. There is no way that we were surprised - there had to be some kind of response.

Once the Japanese attacked, in view of the damage at Pearl Harbor, there was no way the US was going to admit their responsibility for provoking the attack, so for seventy or so years it's been "Pearl Harbor" sneak attack..

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654369)

So, by your standards, Iran and North Korea should be able to bomb the US because we have done the same thing to them. We provoked them. Right.

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654697)

Get a grip, asshat. What would happen if any country attacked the US? Meanwhile, the US had been the aggressor for many, many years, and has attacked many countries which did nothing to the US. If you come and burn down my house, don't be surprised if I burn down yours.

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (2)

Mabhatter (126906) | about 2 years ago | (#41654397)

The Japanese also attacked our main base in the Philippines (taken from the Spanish-American war) at the same time hoping to knock us out of the game in the Pacific. They figured we'd take our ball home and go pick on Germany... One of the big Oops! Of the war. It was a calculated risk to "poke the bear" to keep our noses our of their business in the Pacific... It backfired.

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41654477)

"Provoked" and "sneak attack" do not have to be mutually exclusive.

But good luck trying to correct the historical record.
Most Americans learn a very abbreviated version of history during their formative years.
That version doesn't include 99% of the shitty things our country has done.

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (1)

mattr (78516) | about 2 years ago | (#41654801)

I learned this on a homestay program I was on when I was much younger, I went to a school called Haberdashers' Askes in Watford outside London for a month and lived with a kind family.
One thing that remains engraved in my mind decades later, besides the epiphany of salt and vinegar crisps, was how history taught in England about what we call the Revolutionary War (which they call the American War of Independence) focused on their dashing generals, battles, etc. whereas U.S. education focused on ours. Sounds obvious and not so different as I explain it now, but at the time I remember being dumfounded when we were talking about the same event but it sounded like we were talking about different worlds. I think they were mystified about reenactments and famous sites in the U.S. Come to think about it, a global course of standardized education based on a wikipedia of facts such as can be objectively determined (quite difficult in the context of Japan-China relations I know) and translations of talented writers of history who try not to grind any axes, might be a good step towards preventing a significant number of deaths. Any takers?

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41654377)

Durring Pearl Harbor, we were unprovakably attacked.

The Japanese would disagree. The United States and its allies at the time were shipping arms and providing war-time loans to China and other countries Japan was at war with. The situation was such a problem for the Japanese that they invaded French Indochina in 1940 in an attempt to cut off the supplies of airplanes, machine tools, etc. from the United States into the region. The United States was also staging troops and equipment in the Philippines ahead of Pearl Harbor. The final straw for them was when the entire fleet was moved from San Diego to Hawaii, which to the Japanese looked like a clear sign the United States was planning on moving into the area, and thus restoring the supply lines to China. Making matters worse, after France fell the United States restricted oil shipments to Japan (amongst other countries), forcing the Japanese to attack european-controlled southeast Asia to secure oil (amongst other things).

Feeling backed into a corner, their military advisors decided that a pre-emptive strike on the fleet was the only way to prevent the United States from interfering with the war effort with its navy. So to say it was an unprovoked attack is stupid -- we'd recently cut off oil supplies, were supplying arms to their enemies, and had recently moved our entire navy to a staging area, with the clear aim of moving into the contested region. I hardly blame you though for believing it was unprovoked -- it's what all the (revised) history books tell us.

Mr. Panetta is making the same mistake we made 80 years ago: Backing our enemies into a corner. Well, what happens when you back any animal (or person!) into a corner? They attack, of course. And the United States has a long tradition of setting traps just like this -- using economic manipulation and supplies to tip the balance of conflicts while claiming it's not involved... and then using the inevitable military response by its enemies as an excuse to enter said conflict.

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654485)

Except your entire argument boils down to "ignore the fact that Japan was the hostile invader of China way back in 193*" (depending on which historian you ask).

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654739)

Which was none of the US's business.

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (1, Troll)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41654773)

Wait, so pre-emptive wars are okay, so long as it's not the US conducting them?

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (5, Informative)

oji-sama (1151023) | about 2 years ago | (#41654923)

Wait, so pre-emptive wars are okay, so long as it's not the US conducting them?

Hint: He did not say it was okay, he stated that it wasn't unprovoked.

Re:Pearl Harbor???? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654681)

Already attacked Iran with overt interference in their internal politics, then after the US puppet failed, punitive economic sanctions, then effective blockade of trade, then cyber attack and threats of invasion comparable to Iraq. Iran's response to such extreme provocation has been very mild.

So? (5, Interesting)

cheater512 (783349) | about 2 years ago | (#41654123)

This might be a problem if the US wasn't doing it in return.

If you are actively trying to sabotage someone else's infrastructure, you have to expect them to do it back.
I'd put money on who started it.

I have no sympathy for the US in this regard..

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654219)

You already fell for it.

The US doesn't want sympathy, they want you to think Iran is actually a threat to anyone or anything. Expect lots of news about Iran did this bad thing and Iran is horrible in this way for quite some time. They want you to say 'So?' like it is common knowledge that Iran does all sorts of evils. They are setting it up to be 'Liberated'.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654259)

Sabotaging weapons program != Sabotaging national infrastructure

Fair enough proposition... (3, Insightful)

mevets (322601) | about 2 years ago | (#41654437)

However, each side believes their national infrastructure was sabotaged, and that they sabotaged the others weapons program.

Both suffer from their respective militaries being infused into their very fabric, thus valid targets are practically moot.

Re:Fair enough proposition... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41654579)

So Iran released something indicating they thought they were on military networks? Or do you have some special insight into Iran's operations?

I actually think this has more to do with politics in the US more then actual threat to the US. Think about it, Biden said republicans would start war with Iran in the debates the other day, Ryan said that was false. Obama and Biden have been floating that war mongering bit around for a while now and all the sudden near an election (less then 4 weeks out) Iran is "attacking" our infrastructure.

Re:Fair enough proposition... (1)

mevets (322601) | about 2 years ago | (#41654637)

I agree that the propaganda is in full swing, I was pointing out the futility of differentiating between infrastructure and military targets. I wish it was otherwise.

Re:So? (2)

Mabhatter (126906) | about 2 years ago | (#41654453)

We attacked their program... Attached to their infrastructure... First. Forcing then to clean it up put their anti-hackers ahead of our corporate security.... It's not like the govt told ITS OWN interests about the flaws!!!

Laughingly, by forcing them to deal with Suxnet, we opened the box that ALL control systems are vulnerable to that type of attack... It's VERY common hardware not designed or intended to deal with the "Internet". I'd venture 90% of the places that use these control systems don't even KNOW what was going on. Of course most places in the US are "immune" because manufacturing and power companies are still backward enough they haven't connected their systems to anything. Thanks to SOX the majority of companies that might have considered hooking every toaster to the Internet have manufacturing networks in non-secured, but non-connected sub networks.

Re:So? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 2 years ago | (#41654499)

Sabotaging nuclear power plant == sabotaging nuclear power plant

I'm curious to see if they can cause a melt down - Iran that is.
It would be wonderfully ironic. A tiny persecuted country humiliating a super power with a big ego.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654561)

What nuclear power plant? All Iran has shown is that they have nuclear refinement facilities.

Re:So? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41654507)

Mod up!

In no way did the US or Israel try to damage Iranian infrastructure. All they were doing was trying to slow down Iran's nuclear weapons program.

FTFY (2)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41654791)

In no way did the US or Israel try to damage Iranian infrastructure. All they were doing was trying to slow down Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

FTFY.

Of course, US and Israel and Europe also aren't trying to reduce Iran's population to starvation and destroy their economy....no no no....those oil sanctions are targeted at the oil industry. The fact that people will soon be starving, rioting, looting, etc is merely an inconsequential side effect, right?

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#41654263)

This might be a problem if the US wasn't doing it in return.

If you are actively trying to sabotage someone else's infrastructure, you have to expect them to do it back. I'd put money on who started it.

I have no sympathy for the US in this regard..

Thing is, this is getting reported like it was something Iran was doing out of the blue. Nobody's saying anything about the US's cyberattacks on Iran in an attempt to shut down their nuclear program, irregardless of whether it was a weapons development project like the US claims it is, or if it really was a peaceful power reactor program. It's looking to me like this is becoming a severe case of 'Look what you made me do NOW' just before the US sends in the drones, cruise missiles and tanks. I feel Yet Another Desert War coming on...

Re:So? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41654647)

I feel Yet Another Desert War coming on...

Probably because you don't know anything about Iran except that they have a nuclear weapons program and have used aggressive language towards Israel.

If you attack Iran, you will not just be fighting within the Iranian borders.
Iranian funded groups will lash out, in all directions, at once. [wikimedia.org]
People smarter than us know and understand this, which is why Iran has been managed with sanctions and computer viruses.

You cannot plan to attack Iran without committing to a general war across the Middle East.
The USA does not have the resources to do this and I doubt Poland (or our other NATO buddies) have any interest in being dragged into the sandbox again.

Re:So? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41654789)

Which is why they shouldn't have a nuclear bomb. The fact is they control Syria and Lebanon and even have an army of Hezbollah and the people in these countries suffer.

The trolls are out in force tonight and modding anyone who disagrees with them down faster than you can say goatse. A nuclear Hezbollah bombing Israel, nuclear Syria bombing its civilians and Iran nuclear bombing Saudi citizens rather than trying to gun down their ambassador in DC could be a very frightening situation than anyone imagined.

   

Re:So? (1)

Troggie87 (1579051) | about 2 years ago | (#41654391)

I suspect this isn't complaining about what happened, but rather part of a long process of turning public sentiment in the United States in favor of war with Iran. Not that war will certainly happen, but the political establishment has decided that if Iran doesn't capitulate on the nuclear issue soon (6 months to a year, from the sounds of it) a war is inevitable. In their minds, a war might as well happen before the bomb rather than after it, as Iran will almost certainly try its luck against Israel at some point anyway (being Israel is a major hurdle to Iran's regional ambitions).

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this is a blatant effort to goad Iran into doing something stupid (like a largely pointless "cyber attack") just to manufacture a justification to allow immediate intervention. After all, without the justification the public can always grumble that there wasn't enough effort put into diplomacy, and since any attack to stop nuclear weapons production is going to be preemptive there really isn't a way to play that concern down other than having an ulterior reason for an attack. Trying to find a reason afterwards if you are wrong (like in Iraq, where WMD's were replaces with "well, Saddam was a crappy person anyway!") doesn't typically work well.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654581)

Iran will almost certainly try its luck against Israel at some point anyway (being Israel is a major hurdle to Iran's regional ambitions).

At which point, the Ayatollahs can earn the Peace Prize for achieving more than anyone else towards ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. (I made a desert)

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654433)

It is called a "false flag"

Re:So? (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41654541)

Iran tried to both assassinate our own as well as a Saudi Prime Minister. They are developing a weapon to use to blow up Israel and possible use agaisnt the Saudis as well.

Iran is not some poor old victim crying uncle.

How did we sabotage their infrastructure?

Re:So? (5, Informative)

danheskett (178529) | about 2 years ago | (#41654583)

Iran tried to both assassinate our own as well as a Saudi Prime Minister.
It gets tricky when there are assassinations going on all over the place. A number of Iranian scientists have had.. unfortunate accidents. These are civilians. It is illegal to assassinate civilians, no matter what they are involved in.

They are developing a weapon to use to blow up Israel and possible use against the Saudis as well.
Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran with nuclear weapons means that Israel loses their tactical advantage, and that the two powers will be stalemated. This desire has been cemented since the "axis of evil" line was turned about a decade ago. North Korea will never be invaded by the South, or the US. Why? They have an effective nuclear deterrent. It is entireyl logical for any small country who is at odds with the US to develop a nuclear weapons program. Pakistan is the case in point. Pakistan is every bit as repressive and dysfunctional as Iran, and very likely moreso. The country does not function, and various state organs are at war with each other. Yet we continue to prop up their dictators, their military, and their state intelligence agency. The only reason: the nuclear deterrent. There is no evidence that the mullahs of Iran are irrational. There is evidence that they are rational, and see nuclear weapons as a permanent guarantee of their sovereignty.

Iran is not some poor old victim crying uncle.
Absolutely not. They are actively engaging in a battle to preserve their government and sovereignty. Major figures in the US and Israel are promising war with Iran.

Re:So? (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41654683)

The difference is Israel is not actively seeking them to blow up another country. Iran has established puppet governments in Syria and Lebanon and even a rogue terrorist army that operates in Lebanon that targets civilians. This is why the Saudi's hate them and so do the Sunnus living in both those countries under the Shi ite minority.

Iran is not trying to survive as other countries do not have an interest in wiping them off the map. There is no evidence the US is planning war on Iran. Iran is trying to declare war on us and even Iran admitted it would attack us ships for no apparent reason even if only Israel is attacking.

They also plan to punish other Arab countries too for no apparent reason by blocking off the strait.

Iran is not the kid crying bully. They are inciting and dominating an entire region and would love to nook the arabs and jews next. The end result is those other countries will get nukes too and eventually go into nuclear war with each other.

Re:So? (2)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41654823)

Complete hogwash. I won't even bother responding to your post on a point by point basis, as it's clear you don't even have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. For example your statement of a "puppet government" in Syria. Syria has been ruled by the same family of dictators for a long, long time, and they are not puppets by any stretch of the word. You clearly really don't have the first clue about the Middle East or about Iran. It's sad as fuck how the U.S. is about to jump into WW3 with both feet because of cheering morons like yourself. This one is going to get really ugly.

Re:So? (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41654857)

Where do you think Assad is getting his weapons from? Russia and Iran. Case closed.

The US is not jumping into WW3. Iran is going to attack the US even if Israel does the bombing [businessinsider.com] . Iran has already been creating acts of war by killing our troops in Iraq and an assassination attempt on our ambassador and will pretty much do all of these things mentioned above.

The next move would be for the whole middle east to have a new cold war and stock pile on nuclear weapons so in case the next war happens in the middle east it will be a holocaust.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654757)

How in the fuck would you know? You obviously are easily swayed by US and Israel propaganda. Iran isn't suicidal. They have no intention of attacking any country, last of which would be Israel (with it's 200+ nuclear bombs) and/or the US (with thousands of nuclear bombs). Poor, poor US and Israel. A little country like Iran has their panties all in an uproar. The US wants the oil, and Israel wants to keep the land which was stolen for them in 1947-48.

Re:So? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41654815)

How in the fuck would you know? You obviously are easily swayed by US and Israel propaganda. Iran isn't suicidal. They have no intention of attacking any country, last of which would be Israel (with it's 200+ nuclear bombs) and/or the US (with thousands of nuclear bombs). Poor, poor US and Israel. A little country like Iran has their panties all in an uproar. The US wants the oil, and Israel wants to keep the land which was stolen for them in 1947-48.

Right here [huffingtonpost.com] . FYI technically that is an act of war.

Interesting.... (1)

Cute and Cuddly (2646619) | about 2 years ago | (#41654127)

On one hand, there is claims that Iran could not have taken remote control of the drone a few month ago because they do not have sofisticated technology. On the other hand, they are advanced enough to mount a serios wave of cyber attacks. Is someone trying to build a case for an invasion like in the case of the (Still not found) Iranian weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was hiding in his palaces?

So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41654141)

... There's no turning back now, this means war!

Re:So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#41654335)

Nobody is going to confuse Iran with the "Free" part of Freedonia.

Attributation (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41654167)

Is this like how when they catch a guy breaking into someone's home, they charge him with breaking into every other home in the neighborhood too? Suspicion isn't evidence. It isn't proof. And guess what, there probably won't ever be any proof. Everything about "cyber" warfare (please, god, can we get a better name?) is centered around deception. But if we're going to play the "I have in my hands the names of members of congress known to be in the communist party" rhetoric game... Well, Stuxnet did recently come up from behind them and ruin a lot of very expensive equipment... which many people suspect Israel and the United States to have jointly produced. Are we going to sit here and cry about how two sovereign powers ganged up on a third and then (whine! boo hoo! oh noes!) the third decided to give the other two a bloody nose right back?

Propaganda. That's all this is. Rumors, hints, allegations, and nothing of any substance. Whoopde-fuckin-do. Neither side can be believed -- all the players are lying, cheating bastards when it suits their own political purposes. Hell, everytime some terrorist blows himself up in a public square, dozens of groups come forward to claim responsibility... and governments are no different. Publicity whoring is nothing new...

Re:Attributation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654253)

Is this like how when they catch a guy breaking into someone's home, they charge him with breaking into every other home in the neighborhood too? Suspicion isn't evidence. It isn't proof.

What? There would be no reasonable suspicion that the guy broke into every other home in the neighborhood. So no, it isn't like that.

Re:Attributation (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41654297)

What? There would be no reasonable suspicion that the guy broke into every other home in the neighborhood. So no, it isn't like that.

One of the goals of a police interog--er, interview is to get a confession out of a person. The Innocence Project regularly comes across cases where DNA evidence proves their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt but the person had confessed anyway. There have been numerous high profile cases where the police would interview people who were mentally ill, and convince them to confess to a whole string of unsolved crimes when there wasn't just a lack of reasonable suspicion, but a total lack of any evidence whatsoever to link them to the crime. Something like 86% of cases never even make it to trial because of confessions.

So yes, the police will throw down a bunch of trumped-up charges and hope for a confession when they don't have a shred of evidence; It happens every day. My point is that governments will claim responsibility for something they didn't do, because it looks good politically. Iran in the not too distant past claimed to have shot down a US drone. The truth was it malfunctioned, crashed, and the following day the neighbors found the wreckage and that was the first they'd heard of it. Didn't even know there was a bird in the air; Weren't looking for it, and certainly didn't shoot it down. But admitting that is a lot less glamorous than detailing how their crack team of military geniuses shot down state of the art enemy tech.

Re:Attributation (1)

GPierce (123599) | about 2 years ago | (#41654359)

The original idea was badly stated and your response was clueless. When the police catch a burglar, on of the things they do is to take every open case in their file cabinet and blame it on the guy they caught. It improves their solved case average even if there is no way the guy is to blame for the other stuff.

skg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654185)

http://www.sandmakingplant.net

http://www.vibrating-screen.biz

http://www.mcrushingstation.com

http://www.cnimpactcrusher.com

Panetta the Poo Poo Pannini (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654221)

The legitimacy of Iran's claims that their current drought has been induced [dailystar.com.lb] by the pentagon seems more likely than this. I guess we are supposed to forget about stuxnet and listen to fat gerontological cybertards who probably can't convert hex to binary any better than they can fart Chopin, but are eager to have us all shitting our own hard earned non polyester pants in fear of Persian cyberattacks. No Mr. Panini, no. Stick with coups and assassinations. Maybe convince Iraq to invade Iran again. But lay off the cybershit, you fat PNAC pearl harbor [wikipedia.org] pugnacious tub of Clinically Insane Android turds.

Yeah right (3, Funny)

Sean (422) | about 2 years ago | (#41654229)

And they have weapons of mass destruction just like Iraq

Re:Yeah right (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#41654321)

Pretty much, yes. They have chemical weapons and missiles, and are trying for nuclear. They also threaten their neighbors, and Europe [israelnationalnews.com] . (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas [copts.co.uk] ?)

Iran’s Chemical Weapon Program [iranwatch.org]

In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was “capable of manufacturing chemical weapons [and would] consider using them.” In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran’s policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing “sophisticated offensive chemical weapons.”

As Iran’s chemical warfare capabilities grew, it became more difficult to determine which side was responsible for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. In March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq, sandwiched between Iranian and Iraqi forces, was caught in chemical weapon crossfire that left thousands of civilians dead. A 1990 U.S. Department of Defense reconstruction of the Halabja incident reportedly concluded that both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons in Halabja. Iran allegedly attacked the town with cyanide gas bombs and artillery, and Iraqi forces allegedly used a mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents. In total, the Defense Department study estimated that Iranian forces used more than 50 chemical bombs and artillery shells during the offensive. The Pentagon analysis of the Halabja incident is corroborated by a 1990 report co-written by Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In his report, Pelletiere stated that there was “no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.” Because “blood agents were allegedly responsible forthe killing of Kurds at Halabjah,” Pelletiere concluded that “the Iranians perpetrated this attack.” . . .

In an assessment of Iran’s chemical weapon development released in November 2004, the CIA concluded that Iran “may have already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and possible nerve agents—and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them.” Earlier assessments put Iran’s stockpile of chemical agents at anywhere from several hundred to several thousand metric tons. In March 2001, General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command, testified before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that Iran was “the holder of the largest chemical weapons stockpile” in his area of responsibility.

In September 2000, the CIA assessed that Iran’s chemical weapon program still relied upon external suppliers for technology, equipment and precursor chemicals, but that Tehran was “rapidly approaching self-sufficiency and could become a supplier of CW-related materials to other nations.” Since then, the CIA has reported that Iran was seeking “production technology, training and expertise” that could help it “achieve an indigenous capability to produce nerve agents.”

One of the most recent assessments of Iran’s chemical weapon capabilities was revealed in a February 2005 report by the German news agency ddp, citing findings by Germany’s Customs Office of Criminal Investigations (ZKA). The ZKA reportedly believes that Iran has secretly carried out chemical weapon research and development in small, well-guarded university laboratories. The ZKA further alleges that Iran probably possesses sulfur mustard, tabun, and prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide), and may possess sarin and VX.

More info: WMD Programs [iranwatch.org]

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654501)

Wow, some propaganda site says it is true, it _must_ be true!

Credible sources, not what you referenced, like the IAEA state Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program.

Israel and quite a few high placed officials in the US _want_ a war with Iran. They are spreading propaganda to justify their unprovoked attack. Don't fall for it.

Now, if the US didn't overthrow the _democratically_ elected government of Iran in 1954, and install a bloody right-wing dictator we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re:Yeah right (4, Insightful)

danheskett (178529) | about 2 years ago | (#41654605)

And please don't forget that Gov. Romney has essentially promised war with Iran if elected. The right-wing power base in the US despise Pres. Obama for refusing to escalate the Iranian situation. It is entirely likely that the only reason that US is presently not at war with Iran is that Pres. Obama has refused to be cornered into making threats that can used as a "last straw" that would require the US to attack.

Luckily, besides Pres. Obama, are a number of well placed individuals in the military command structure who believe that an Iranian scenario cannot end well for the US.

Re:Yeah right (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654665)

Obama has just been waiting until it's politically convenient. He will go to "war" [cruise missiles and drone strikes] before the election. He will impose martial law if he loses the vote, saying he needs to stay in power due to the terrible war with Iran, China, and Russia.

Re:Yeah right (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#41654613)

You are badly misinformed, on more than one subject.

Allow me to draw you attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report [guardian.co.uk] dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program. In it you will see that Iran has carried out a number of weapons related activities, and that there are serious open questions. An earlier report referenced here [nytimes.com] found seven categories of activity aimed at nuclear weapons production, and rather damning ones at that. And if you can trouble yourself to read, the UN Secretary General is urging Iran to come clean [haaretz.com] .

Neither the US nor Israel want war with Iran as it would be both an enormous waste of resources, and a dangerous development for the world, including the economy. But the US, Israel, Europe, and most of Iran's neighbors want a nuclear armed Iran even less than war.

You are also wrong about the coup. It was a counter-coup that restored the Shaw to power - that would be the Shaw that was the lawful head of government in Iran prior to the coup that pushed him out and the counter-coup that restored him to power. So, your point there is also nonsense, particularly in light of the ambitions of the radical Shia who formed Iran's government.

And I'll throw in a bonus since you get so much else wrong: State Sponsors: Iran [cfr.org]

Maybe . . . (1)

fizzer06 (1500649) | about 2 years ago | (#41654237)

The government has consitently displayed a flagrant disregard for the truth.

Why should we believe them now?

No certainty on attacks,but certainty on downloads (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654241)

So let me get this straight...it's impossible to say with certainty who's behind the attacks...but it is possible to say with certainty who downloaded a song or movie?...seems like the government is acknowledging that an IP address doesn't equal a person (or even nation for that matter).

I know it's an over simplification...call it hyperbole to make a point.

Saudi Aramco, has critical systems off the net (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654245)

Except that Saudi Aramco, the Saudi's oil company is smart enough to NOT CONNECT THEIR CRITICAL SYSTEMS TO THE INTERNET.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/technology/saudi-oil-producers-computers-restored-after-cyber-attack.html

" Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil producer, has resumed operating its main internal computer networks after a virus infected about 30,000 of its workstations earlier this month, the company said Sunday. "

"On Sunday, Saudi Aramco said the workstations had been cleansed of the virus and restored to service. Oil exploration and production were not affected BECAUSE THEY OPERATE ON ISOLATED SYSTEMS, it said. " ...

Cyber Pearl Harbor? No, scare mongering to get budget during election times.

Re: Saudi Aramco, has critical systems off the net (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654797)

Stuxnet was introduced by USB stick. Being connected to the internet is not a factor.

Sounds Legit. (2)

wadeal (884828) | about 2 years ago | (#41654251)

Because "American Intelligence Officials" are always reliable. They've never lied about anything ever before.

sensationalism (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#41654255)

The source is an "unnamed official." The evidence presented is this:

The virus that hit Aramco is called Shamoon and spread through computers linked over a network to erase files on about 30,000 computers by overwriting them. Mr. Panetta, while not directly attributing the strike to Iran in his speech, called it "probably the most destructive attack that the private sector has seen to date."

Until the attack on Aramco, most of the cybersabotage coming out of Iran appeared to be what the industry calls "denial of service" attacks

This is hyperbole. Assuming the company had backups, it was definitely not the most destructive attack that the private sector has seen. It hasn't impacted their operations (oil deliveries are still being made on time). Pretty sure this one was worse [slashdot.org] , and that there were even worse ones.

I don't doubt that Iranians have the computer skills to hack into computers, but Leon Panetta is trying to play the fear card during an election to try to get his agenda passed. He isn't trying to represent the situation honestly.

This is just taste of what's to come (5, Insightful)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 2 years ago | (#41654271)

In a related Slashdot story yesterday we have this quote:

'We would be much better served if we accepted that prevention eventually fails, so we need detection, response, and containment for the incidents that will occur.

Really? Isn't that why DARPA created the internet in the first place, so our communication and command and control systems could survive a nuclear attack that we failed to prevent?

So I guess we already DO accept the notion that prevention is going to fail and the worst possible thing may happen sooner or later.

So what they're saying is we need to re-internetize the internet. In this I think they're probably right. To a degree we've de-interneted the internet by building inter-dependent applications which focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them.

How hard can it be to integrate this into the smart grid? We have the a large part of the infrastructure. We have robust packet switched networks. This is doable and should be done.

This is fundamentally the problem of modern society; it's what brought down the Twin Towers . We make something like a plane and never see it as a guided missile filled with explosive jet fuel. We build huge skyscrapers piling people on top of people and don't permit ourselves to think too much that this same arrangement of people represents a force multiplier to a determined enemy. Just an easy example from recent history; other possibilities abound.The more technologically advanced we become the more highly leveraged weapons we accidentally deliver into the hands of religionists and other madmen.

There has to be a paradigm shift in ALL our thinking about the things, the structures of civil society upon which we depend, and not just in the thinking in intelligence circles because we need to vote "yes", even "hell yes" for the taxes which pay to make these things not just work, but secure.

We are less secure today not because anyone is asleep at the switch or less concerned with security, but because we are not keeping up with ourselves technologically, in a certain sense.

Re:This is just taste of what's to come (1)

GODISNOWHERE (2741453) | about 2 years ago | (#41654409)

DARPA did not create the internet to survive a nuclear attack. To quote David Wheeler,

"Some mistakenly claim that the Internet and TCP/IP were specifically created to resist nuclear attacks; this is absolutely not true, since its parent the ARPANET was specifically created to share large systems. Yet it’s also a mistake to claim that there was no connection between the Internet and survivable networks; the Internet TCP/IP technology is an internetwork of data packets, and as noted earlier, packet-switching of data packets was created was to be survivable in case of disaster."

Source: http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html [dwheeler.com]

Re:This is just taste of what's to come (2)

guisar (69737) | about 2 years ago | (#41654445)

Do you REALLY believe the modern, current government of the us or any country is the right, proper, and most capable place for "securing" anything? Do you believe a centralized, procedurized and standardized approach to security is the most effective one?

I would argue the breaches, not the protections are mainly due to government action and inaction. The government should protect public sytems- eg those owned by the federal and state governments and critical to its operation. The private concerns should do the same for theres. Like other aspects of modern warfare, a decentralized method of planning, offense and defense is the best strategy (IMHO).

Re:This is just taste of what's to come (1)

danheskett (178529) | about 2 years ago | (#41654623)

I disagree.

Proceduralization is very effective method of getting things done. There are many IT people who mistakenly believe that security is a sort of voodoo. It's not. It is strictly science.

There is no push to make government the decider of what is secure, and what specific policies to implement. There is a big push to get government to require certain important private entities to have security policies, to enforce them, to submit the standards to standards bodies for review and comments, and to be transparent about breaches.

There is a big, big difference between the former and the latter.

Re:This is just taste of what's to come (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | about 2 years ago | (#41654535)

To be fair, we DID consider public safety in building the towers... Of 50k people in those buildings, the VAST majority were able to evacuate because we had proper building codes and evacuation plans in place.

As far as Internet security, SOX has forced companies to separate financial data from manufacturing data... Meaning the vast majority of susceptible systems are off the Internet, or behind firewalls...

In both cases, yes, damage can still be done... With the towers it was an act of war. With the Internet most companies would take a deliberate attack... There are 1000 other things that network admins have to worry about when dealing with power systems... From idiots with power tools to newbie employees... Super hacker ninjas trying to break software that's "glued shut" 99.99% of the time just isn't on the list.

You can spend all your time and sanity looking to build a perfect safe system, or spend a moderate amount of time building practical ways to recover quickly. When you are in the middle of parties committing acts of war, you have bigger problems.

I live in out-state Michigan and it wasn't that long ago you could ASSUME to have 2-3 days of power outage in winter. Forget TV, Cellphones and Internet... We're talking heat and light. People are too hung upon their 99.9% efficiencies, they forget we used to CLOSE whole cities for holiday and everybody got along just fine for a few days.

Re:This is just taste of what's to come (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654559)

In a related Slashdot story yesterday we have this quote:

'We would be much better served if we accepted that prevention eventually fails, so we need detection, response, and containment for the incidents that will occur.

Really? Isn't that why DARPA created the internet in the first place, so our communication and command and control systems could survive a nuclear attack that we failed to prevent?

So I guess we already DO accept the notion that prevention is going to fail and the worst possible thing may happen sooner or later.

So what they're saying is we need to re-internetize the internet. In this I think they're probably right. To a degree we've de-interneted the internet by building inter-dependent applications which focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them.

How hard can it be to integrate this into the smart grid? We have the a large part of the infrastructure. We have robust packet switched networks. This is doable and should be done.

This is fundamentally the problem of modern society; it's what brought down the Twin Towers . We make something like a plane and never see it as a guided missile filled with explosive jet fuel. We build huge skyscrapers piling people on top of people and don't permit ourselves to think too much that this same arrangement of people represents a force multiplier to a determined enemy. Just an easy example from recent history; other possibilities abound.The more technologically advanced we become the more highly leveraged weapons we accidentally deliver into the hands of religionists and other madmen.

There has to be a paradigm shift in ALL our thinking about the things, the structures of civil society upon which we depend, and not just in the thinking in intelligence circles because we need to vote "yes", even "hell yes" for the taxes which pay to make these things not just work, but secure.

We are less secure today not because anyone is asleep at the switch or less concerned with security, but because we are not keeping up with ourselves technologically, in a certain sense.

Nice work
http:www.pktechnoexpert.blogspot.com

Re:This is just taste of what's to come (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41654693)

So what they're saying is we need to re-internetize the internet. In this I think they're probably right. To a degree we've de-interneted the internet by building inter-dependent applications which focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them.

How hard can it be to integrate this into the smart grid? We have the a large part of the infrastructure. We have robust packet switched networks.

Oh fuck. The smart grid.
The smart grid was designed by individuals who either "focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them"
OR bootstrapped their "smart" on top of stupid old systems that no one ever imagined would require security,
OR they were just to fucking cheap to bake security into their plans from day 0.

This is doable and should be done.

It's doable if the government is willing to pay private companies to rip out their old infrastructure and put in some brand new Made-In-China technology.
It will not be done if private businesses can't write it off on their taxes or find some way to have the general public subsidize it for them.

The best passive defence is ....... (1)

Turminder Xuss (2726733) | about 2 years ago | (#41654423)

Somehow you just know investigations of Iran's Passive Defence Organization are gonna run into its evil twin, the Passive Aggressive Organization: "No, it's fine ! I'm sure your suspicions are founded on solid evidence. We'll get right onto it. Take a ticket and wait for your number".

I Suspect US Was Behind a Wave of Cyberattacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654457)

I Suspect US Was Behind a Wave of Falseflag (Cyber)Attacks On Their Own Nation.

Now Osama Bin Laden is dead (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 2 years ago | (#41654479)

Now Osama Bin Laden is Dead and the cold war with Russia is over, they need a new enemy. Without an enemy, people might actually look at the state of the economy, freedom and other inconvenient things. So what if the Iranians have spawned a bunch of script kiddies? Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked massive attack at the whole of the only part of the USA's army that could threaten a country at once. These are pin pricks compared to that. I call cry wolf for the sake of distraction and black ops budget justification.

Re:Now Osama Bin Laden is dead (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 2 years ago | (#41654883)

Pearl Harbor was totally provoked. Learn your history. Amazing how the old propaganda still lingers. FDR was provoking as much as he could because we NEEDED to get into WW2. When you mess with a nation's oil supply that is an actionable provocation Americans today should understand...

PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654545)

Pretty much sums it up.

Gah (2)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41654563)

I want off this planet, immediately. I can't...I can't facepalm hard enough when I hear shit like this.

Morons weaponizing the internet. It's the idiot kid who needs to prove he's a hard ass to everyone else in the sandbox.

I hate to break it to you (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41654765)

but this has been the human condition since day one, and will be the human condition long after you are gone, with any conceivable permutation on technology you can think of

and yet we were still able to create civilization and all the benefits of that and we still possess all the good qualities you hold dear

Re:Gah (2)

Aryden (1872756) | about 2 years ago | (#41654795)

The thing I worry about the most is not the U.S. govt using things like this to provoke us into war, it's what they try to do with our freedoms and the internet to "keep us safe" from everyone else. They'd turn "Think of the children" into "Think of our national security" and we'd be right fucked.

Leave the gate open, blame the horse for bolting.. (1)

felixrising (1135205) | about 2 years ago | (#41654567)

Sure, we can run around getting mad because someone exploited a hole.. or we can stop building systems with holes that can be exploited... As a systems engineer I believe the contractual obligation to provide systems and software which is fit for purpose and fit for use should not lie with the users of said software, but with the producers. There is an aspect of mismanagement/misconfiguration but really, we are applying patches ALL THE TIME! If our level of trust in border protection (i.e. the border between internal network and Internet) is so low, then maybe a redesign is required that separates these two areas so we stop getting exploited in the first place. Our weighting of security vs convenience is way too far towards the convenience side, and we're depending on sloppy coding and configuration and getting caught out far too often and then blaming the attackers.

cyber war is just a figure of speech (5, Interesting)

0111 1110 (518466) | about 2 years ago | (#41654571)

Cyber war is like the war on drugs. Like the war on terror. Like all of the other 'wars' that are not wars at all. If this is Iran's idea of war then I say bring it on. It was idiotic of us to start this shit in the first place. When someone in Iran wants to buy something they go to a store. Disabling their internets would just slightly invonvenience them. For us it would be more than just a slight inconvenience. It would be a serious inconvenience.

If the new idea of "war" is not to kill anyone, but instead to just disable some web sites well that's a new world order that I can back enthusiastically. Maybe the world will be civilized enough some day to fight wars completely in cyber-space through special video games approved by both sides.

The idea of a cyber Pearl Harbor is one of the most idiotic things I've heard in a while. What these idiots don't seem to understand is that 'information super highway' is just a figure of speech. There is no actual highway or anything.

"We won't succeed in preventing a cyber attack through improved defenses alone," Mr. Panetta said. "If we detect an imminent threat of attack that will cause significant, physical destruction in the United States or kill American citizens, we need to have the option to take action against those who would attack us to defend this nation when directed by the president. For these kinds of scenarios, the department has developed that capability to conduct effective operations to counter threats to our national interests in cyberspace."

This statement is so clearly insane that I don't even know what to say in response except it's not the Iranians that scare me. It's my own fucking idiotic shit-for-brains government. I can just imagine these violent idiots starting a war based on some random Iranian dude taking down some e-commerce sites. Ooh, Americans are not able to complete their Amazon orders for a few hours. Boohoo. Let's go to war.

Check out the real situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654611)

Nation war against nation.
Where did it all begin?
When will it end?
Well, it seems like total destruction the only solution,
And there ain't no use; no one can stop them now.
Ain't no use; nobody can stop them now.

US suspects a lot, yet it's never that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654633)

Because they're the ones that started it in the first place...

WMB, CA, MB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41654655)

First Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destructin, now Iran has Cyber Attack capability. What's next? China has Moon Bases?

The US war mongers are just making up excuses.

It's probably US "intelligence" gone wrong.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...