Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US
jpost.com
jpost.com
http://www.langner.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/To-kill... (36 page PDF)
Langner was the first researcher (outside of those who were involved in its creation) to discover Stuxnet.
> "Whatever the effect of the overpressure attack was, the attackers decided to try something different in 2009. That may have been motivated by the fact that the overpressure attack was lethal just by accident, that it didn’t achieve anything, or – that somebody simply decided to check out something new and fresh."
> "Summing up, the differences between the two Stuxnet variants discussed here are striking. In the newer version, the attackers became less concerned about being detected. It seems a stretch to say that they wanted to be discovered, but they were certainly pushing the envelope and accepting the risk."
> "The dramatic differences between both versions point to changing priorities that will most likely have been accompanied by a change in stakeholders. "
I wonder if that's when the Israelis got involved?
Also, this is shockingly readable for the depth and subject matter!
I don't see how one follows from the other. One talks about the virus causing additional damage to centrifuges rather than minor damage.
The other is about increased infectiousness.
They are two different things and they are just tied together as if there is some relationship between them.
This article is almost completely devoid of any evidence, or even a plausible logical explanation/motivation.
Perhaps the additional damage is caused by increased infectiousness since the virus would be spread through more diverse intermediaries on its way to various centrifuge systems?
>This article is almost completely devoid of any evidence, or even a plausible logical explanation/motivation.
Well this article is reporting on what is stated in a forthcoming movie, not performing an investigation
And there it is. Fingerprinting the variety of recipients takes time and effort, as well as producing viable payloads to assert control over them.
It is such an amazing cornerstone in the cyberpunk reality of where the world is heading.
If you haven't watched the tech talks on stuxnet and duqu, please do - super interesting.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rOwMW6agpTI
https://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_2...
If you or someone else has some recommendations on which ones are worth watching, please do let us know.
>> “changed the code” (the scare quotes bit)
>> to invent a “vaccine”
>> the secret formula... fell into the hands of Russia and Iran
>> increasingly stronger versions of the virus
>> the most deadly version of the virus
Is anyone else not wild about the manner in which "cyber" articles get written? I feel like non-technical readers are left mildly concerned that they're going to come down with a case of the stuxnet and die, or that now that Russia and Iran have a copy of stuxnet we're all doomed.
Most of the language regarding the virus seemed more appropriate for an actual bioweapon. It'd be nice if there were a bit more focus on educating the public than scaring them.
Might not be scare quotes but a direct quotation
>> to invent a “vaccine”
This is pretty obvious - an antivirus
>> the secret formula... fell into the hands of Russia and Iran
They got a way to get the virus' signature, as well as copies to reverse-engineer
>> increasingly stronger versions of the virus
>> the most deadly version of the virus
Might refer to virulence or how quickly the effects were ramped up. The most effective viruses are not the most transmissible (burn themselves out and/or are quickly noticed)
> now that Russia and Iran have a copy of stuxnet we're all doomed
not doomed per se, but it would probably be better for the average american if this hadn't happened. The worst thing about this, IMO, is that it set a very public precedent on the use of 'cyber-weaponry', costing the US moral high-ground
It wasn't scare quotes. It was an actual quote "US Vice President Joe Biden was quoted in the film as saying in a meeting that the Israelis 'changed the code' of the deadly virus’s software."
I doubt that this alone was all they needed. Probably once they had identified the vendors of the equipment, they retrieved the purchase orders from those vendors, either with or without the knowledge of said vendors.
The sheer arrogance with with Israel operates is just something else. They seem to to believe that no action they take will ever be questioned or lead to any blowback.
The almost total control of US Foreign policy that they have now makes me think that the Iran deal being operationalized was nothing sort of a coup for Pres. Obama.
If I were a conspiracy nut, I would be looking very closely at how those two US naval boats drifted that close to an Iranian base on the eve of the agreement coming into force.
There is something to be said about a country's foreign policy and how 'arrogant' it is. A country can have a solid foreign policy (read: not be a pushover) and still not act like a giant bully.
So let's ask the same question again: is Israel's behavior arrogant? Possibly, but not really when compared to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria or Qatar
Because Israel could not do five percent of the things they are doing without the massive amount of military and financial welfare and protection they receive from the USA. The other countries you list do not have that luxury to nearly the same extent.
What? Egypt got no "foreign aid" until some post-Nasserite forces in Egypt got together and decided to kow-tow to Israel and the US during the Camp David accords. For Jordan it is pretty much the same thing, from the attacks on Black September on.
The politicians running these countries were bought off to play nice with Israel. This is more or less openly stated in journals like Foreign Affairs. The money to Egypt and Jordan is money being given indirectly to Israel.
>No foreign aid http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-wit... and it was even offered during your hero Nasser's regime
I agree with you they were bought off, but was it better for them to be at a constant war with Israel?
> The money to Egypt and Jordan is money being given indirectly to Israel I'd very much would like an explanation on this.
Israel operates with utter disregard for the US, and has done pretty well for itself by doing so.
It's hard to fault them for continuing their pattern of behavior.
Israel did not and never will colonize Palestine "properly" like the British Empire did. They are either afraid of the blowback or surprisingly restrained.
Which US foreign policy decisions in the past 10 years were "controlled" by Israel? Sanctions on Russia? Missile defence system in Europe? North Korea? Relations with China? War on Terror? Libya campaign? US non-response to the "Arab spring"? Campaign in Syria? Drone strikes in Pakistan? Relations with Latin America? War on Drugs? Spying on Angela Merkel?
Literally nothing of what the US did in the last decade had anything to do with Israel. Even when it comes to Iran - which Israeli leaders considered to be an existential threat - Israel completely failed to influence the US foreign policy.
The difference here is that in an international setting, our national ego comes into play and suddenly it's all about the Israeli lobby or some deep geopolitical interests, when it could just as easily be caused by a SW bug or an overzealous midlevel manager.
Maybe there is a place for a broader discussion about supplying arms to Israel, but I don't think this case is a good example. Looks more like Israel and the US collaborated very closely, on mostly equal terms, to achieve some impressive technological breakthroughs. If anything, this is a testament to how technology and international cooperation can provide a safe and efficient alternative to unilateral use of of force. If the worst side-effect of all of our covert and overt operations was leaking some Zero Days, the world would be a much safer place.
Given the NSA's contradictory mandates to both improve and weaken security, I think you're definitely on to something.
(However, 3 of 8 US Supreme Court Justices are from NYC, and Alito and Scalia are/were from NJ.)
Clarification: not to imply that the NSA is bad at their job currently, but if they could borrow two years off of every technical person in the country I can't see how that could hurt.
Yes, because there would be a bigger pool to choose from. For the same reason that bigger schools have better sports teams: More Athletic types... Having a bigger pool of candidates means you have more chance to get specific with your choices.
No, because then you would be using the "Draft". There is a reason the US moved away from it in after Vietnam and went to an "All Volunteer" force. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Sta... )
Personally, I think those types of services (Military, FBI, etc) should be volunteer... last thing you want is your back being guarded or secrets been covered by someone who doesn't agree with or want to be there.
I'd bet their tech-sector-knowledge population is higher than Manhattan, by ratio.
Bad analogy. Israel aggressively imports tech/engineering/science talent from the global Jewish diaspora.
The NSA staffed only with residents of NYC would probably look very different from the NSA staffed only by residents of the state of Michigan.
It's like there's a four tier system to what defines a US Ally.
Platinum - Gets you exclusive access to black funds & latest weapons no other allies are getting. Discounted oil from Saudi too.
Gold - Gets you access to aids and credit line with the IMF. You get the top grade weapons that other allies wish they were getting haha.
Silver - Gets you access to some aids and political credit for your election periods in your country. Free defense of your country, we'll even pay half the cost of our stay.
Bronze - Gets honorable mention in speeches and aids but don't count on our diplomatic support. You are largely left on your own to defend your country. We'll sell you some of our refurbished weapons and overstocked weaponry at a discount or if you buy our bonds.
edit: why the downvotes? seems like any comment that seems to critcize US-Israel relationship on here are automatically downvoted to oblivion. As a Canadian, all of this is very confusing. A) Why in the fuck would the most powerful country succumb to a particular smaller country but nobody else B) Why in the fuck nobody is allowed to question the arrangement? C) Why are people who think Jesus will return in Israel (mental illness?) are allowed to make decisions on behalf of people who don't agree with it?
And to people who say both countries are acting in a way that maximizes their national interests, yet certain actions by certain country are seemingly kosher (no pun intended) while if another country in the similar position did the same actions, there would be severe punitive and a concerted diplomatic backlash and media smearing. All but one particular country seems to get a free golden pass on literally all aspects that influence United State's national interests.
The US gets less than what Israel gets out of the relationship. What was US's big reward for helping Israel? It incited attack from other anti-Israeli terrorists and continue to place the national security at risk just to further some geopolitical goals in some remote place that has nothing to do with the average American.
The emperor wears no clothes, and as a Canadian I just pointed out what I'm seeing. I have no stake in this argument or have mistrust or hatred for Israeli people and American peoples, but it's not hard to see the level of mistrust each countries populace has towards their own government's policy.
As long as the US continues to gain more from its alliance with Israel than it loses, the alliance will endure. No matter how much individual leaders may loathe each other.
It's an empire-cock-blocking hate we have with Iran.
This also begs the question what is Iran's main problem with Israel then? Israel wasn't involved in operation Ajax. Why is it the little Satan to America's great Satan?
Given their conduct in Syria, I find the "sympathy with the Palestinians" slightly hard to believe.
I think you can probably trace such realpolitik and statecraft back to Mesopotamia and beyond.
If only we acted that way. Our levels of support to Israel are disproportionate to the benefits we receive. For better or for worse we would in no way tolerate the Israeli level of diplomatic and political sabotage without such a strong pro-Israeli lobby. If it's a moral imperative, then fine, but I've never heard a convincing description of what we're actually getting from the Israelis to justify the rest of the relationship. Just "having a democracy in the Middle East" is not itself useful, especially when literally everyone in the neighborhood wants to kill them. If it weren't for the pro-Israeli lobby they'd be getting the Ukraine treatment, strong words of support, but otherwise they'd be on their own.
The word you're looking for is aid. People die of aids.
I think Israel's history and geo-political position makes them much more skiddish than other countries. A significant portion of their society was formed from holocaust survivors. And then it fought a series of wars against it's neighbors. A significance loss could be disastrous for them.
There is some reason for them to be suspicious of America. During The 1973 war, the US told them not to preemptively attack, which may have cost them dearly (it's not clear if Americas advice was the reason they didn't). The US considered not re-arming the Israeli's during that war when they needed supplies and weapons.
But they also have little to offer the United States. If a Warsaw/NATO war happened in the 1950-80s it would have been Europeans dying by the millions too. Israel is never going to a key ally to the US.
Eh, there's no reason to be surprised. There is no strategic benefit to Israel in "grabbing" arbitrary chunks of Syria just because they happen to be undefended at the moment. It is in an excellent position right now to not just defend itself against any attacks from Syria but indeed deter them, and military overextension would weaken that.
I was and still surprised they didn't grab a bit of Syria.
And yes, Israel has some extremely good technology. But they also have some pretty fierce enemies. See their incursion into Southern Lebanon a few years back for instance. They also don't have that large of a population. It probably is in their best interest they aren't seen as expansionist.... for the moment at least.
Given the history short (modern) history of Israel and the religious animosity of the neighbors etc. it would be certain to inflame more hostility internationally than Rawanda taking a piece of Burndi for instance. But I'm sure you are already aware of all this. I went back and read your previous posts. It seems you may be looking for an anti-Semite under every rock. Well... next rock. I'm just pointing out practical reality. I don't have an axe to grind with Israel existing.
What made me raise an eyebrow was the bit about how if things changed, it might be in Israel's interests to be expansionist. That's obviously true, one could say that about any country, of course, but... well, in the end that's probably on me being oversensitive, and it was uncalled for to go after it.
If Israel was "hell bent on using nuclear weapons" why haven't they used their nuclear weapons? You are so choked with hatred you can't even assemble a consistent argument. You need to step back and think about things for a while. Ask yourself why you hate so much, and who put this poison in your head, and why they did it.
They don't really have much to gain from trying to grab parts of Syria - they already have just the right amount of territory in the area to have very defensible borders. Taking more would give them territory much more vulnerable to attack, pretty much nothing in the way of natural resources, and most likely a population somewhere between neutral and hostile to manage. Not to mention that it would surely play rather poorly in the Arab world and the greater diplomatic community. Israel has done relatively well to conspicuously have no involvement in any of the Arab Spring rebellions.
Certainly Israel has been very formidable against weak armies such as those of Egypt. However, I don't think Israel's brief 2006 war against Hezbollah went all that well. Very little achieved at considerable cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
My impression was that the average Israeli soldier involved was like: "fuck this, what the fuck am I fighting for?" Shades of Vietnam!
The Israeli army of 2016 is not at all the same as the armies that fought in 1967 and 1973. But I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff, so I'd welcome corrections.
It's worth noting that Hezbollah is quite terrible at counter-insurgency too, and they know it, which is why they've never made any attempt to take control of the rest of Lebanon outside the Shia area they control in the south.
That's like saying having a hamster is an unfair relationship because the hamster gets a lot more out of it than you do.
The US is not threatened by Iran. At all.
Israel is threatened by Iran and Iran's leaders have said they would wipe Israel off the map.
For Israel, there was probably a greater sense of urgency than the level of patience that we were willing to use.
This was not said, it's just Zionist propaganda. Even the Washington Post says so ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-a... ).
The fact that this lie is repeated over and over shows you how thoroughly Zionist propaganda has propagated through the US media.
> But the story doesn’t end there. Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that Iranian government entities began to erect billboards and signs with the “wipe off” phrase in English. Joshua Teitelbaum of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs compiled an interesting collection of photographs of these banners, such as one on the building that houses reserve military forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world,” the sign reads in English."
The editor of Al-Ahram in Cairo, who was very close to the government, once wrote on that subject back in the Cold War days. He said that the USSR had a quite explicit three-tier system, and it was very hard for a country to change tiers. Tier I countries got the Bolshoi ballet on tour, and when mid-level ministers called Moscow, the call back was from a higher level minister. Tier II countries got the Leningrad ballet, and callbacks from an equal level minister. Tier III countries didn't get tours and got callbacks from some low-level staffer.
On Israel as an ally of the US: The US and Israel do not have a mutual defense treaty. The US has a treaty obligation to defend NATO countries, most of South America, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines.[2] But not Israel. The NATO connection is particularly strong; the NATO commander (a job which rotates amongst the NATO countries) can deploy troops from the member nations. Israel has a "security cooperation" treaty, but it doesn't obligate the US to support Israel militarily if they get into a war. A few years ago, Israel was pushing for war with Iran, but the US made it clear that Israel was on their own if they started a war with Iran.[3]
[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/0... [2] http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ [3] http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/20/the-real-cr...
It's obviously a smear campaign against Israel, i'd take it with a grain of salt.
> a “vaccine” for their computers
> the secret formula for writing the code for the virus software
> these entry and exit points served as portals to implant the virus.
> the most deadly version of the virus
I don't know if this is a result of the journalist, or the film that is the source material, but that's way too many bad biological parallels to describe a computer virus.
This is just bad.
Trust me I have @dang all over me when I make poor/emotional comments, but this is just ignorant.
Nobody cares that the Israelis are Jews, we care when they (and any other homo Sapiens) act like assholes.
So this is not a Jewish issue, per se, it's an asshole issue, let's be clear about that.
You need to likely turn on "see dead links" in your profile to see them.
In case anyone is wondering, the way to flag a comment (if you have more than 30 karma) is by clicking on its timestamp to go to its page, then clicking 'flag' at the top.