Computer Worm Hits Iran Power Plant

Sorry, didn't realise it was behind the paywall.

Here's the open link for the story: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405274870408210...

"The U.S. would be a less likely suspect because it uses offensive cyberoperations infrequently and usually only under specific circumstances when officials are confident the operation will affect only its target, current and former U.S. officials said."

I wonder what a "current or former [any country] officials" would have said other than a paraphrase of above...

Really I'm not being conspiratorial here, just thinking out aloud whether quoted statement is meaningless or not.

"Hits" implies the worm did something. All this article mentions is that a few personal computers at the plant are infected (implying possibly more).

But, then again, shock-and-awe that WSJ would sink to linkbait titles.

Does HN have guidelines for submitting links that are behind a paywall? I ask because I don't have a WSJ account and couldn't read the linked article - then realized I can't remember the last time I got stuck at a paywall dead end on HN. I checked the guidelines and didn't see anything. Are we supposed to flag these or just leave them alone? Thanks.

Makes you wonder if the creators of Stuxnet were spooked into trying to trigger its payload by all the coverage of it, or if it's just a coincidence that the Iranians admitted they were infected after info about it started to get out.

Yeah, right...