How Stux’d up are Iran’s nukes? 2 years looks like… at least…

‘Stuxnet virus set back Iran’s nuclear program by 2 years’

The Stuxnet virus, which has attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities and which Israel is suspected of creating, has set back the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program by two years, a top German computer consultant who was one of the first experts to analyze the program’s code told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

“It will take two years for Iran to get back on track,” Langer said in a telephone interview from his office in Hamburg, Germany. “This was nearly as effective as a military strike, but even better since there are no fatalities and no full-blown war. From a military perspective, this was a huge success.”

Langer spoke to the Post amid news reports that the virus was still infecting Iran’s computer systems at its main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and its reactor at Bushehr.

Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog, said that Iran had suspended work at its nuclear-field production facilities, likely a result of the Stuxnet virus.

According to Langer, Iran’s best move would be to throw out all of the computers that have been infected by the worm, which he said was the most “advanced and aggressive malware in history.” But, he said, even once all of the computers were thrown out, Iran would have to ensure that computers used by outside contractors were also clean of Stuxnet.

“It is extremely difficult to clean up installations from Stuxnet, and we know that Iran is no good in IT [information technology] security, and they are just beginning to learn what this all means,” he said. “Just to get their systems running again they have to get rid of the virus, and this will take time, and then they need to replace the equipment, and they have to rebuild the centrifuges at Natanz and possibly buy a new turbine for Bushehr.”

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

7 comments on “How Stux’d up are Iran’s nukes? 2 years looks like… at least…

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. You can rest assured that the Israelis were part of the attack when the JPost says that it was a great success and blew the Iranians backward.

    if they weren’t involved, it would be called a terrible failure and only an immediate rain of bombs on the Iranians would plainly save the world.

  2. Iran is a threat to Israel, of course. That is the raison d’etre of the Khamenei regime. But a country that is devoting its energy to the attempted destruction of a state with which it has no quarrel is crazy. And a crazy nation is a threat to the whole world.
    If Israel is the source of the Stuxnet virus, the whole world should be grateful. Needless to say, it won’t be. It doesn’t matter what Israel does. It is simply the most hated country on earth and that’s all there is to it.

  3. George, you’re more fixated on the world hating Israel than moat of the Israel-haters.

    Sheesh, George, even enemies have paranoids.

  4. It would be a boon to Israel’s reputation if it found a way to take credit for this thing more conspicuously. Technophiliac young people around the world would love the idea that Israel had found a non-violent, super-high tech way of subverting a nuclear program. So 4Chan, so l33t, so i-chic…

    They should find a way to quash the notion that it was the Chinese that did it, though if it turned out that it was a joint operation, or was played that way, that might also work well enough.

  5. “This was nearly as effective as a military strike, but even better since there are no fatalities and no full-blown war. From a military perspective, this was a huge success.”

    Now if only there were a way to follow stuxnet up with something subtle that causes an incident like a premature fissile explosion, or a way to poison fissile material with something that will result it’s being unusable. Oh, wait, perhaps there are ways.

    I imagine Iran is independently verifying every published and or stolen unpublished physical constant associated with nuclear weapons construction and assembly to several decimal places, and rechecking the backgrounds of every technician who will have access to their fissile material and process plans and specifications at and for every stage of the project. Just as I suppose there may be people who are fabricating or have fabricated disinformation touching on the reliability of Iranian technicians and scientists.

    Even paranoids can’t be paranoid enough.

  6. The more curious but trickier stunt was something Robert Littell suggested in a ‘Once and Future Spy’ smuggling radioactive material
    into proximity with a nuclear plant, triggering a chain reaction, no you can’t do that in Bushehr for obvious reason, but maybe other locations.

  7. Interesting with Ronen Bergmann, the author of the Newsweek story
    on the Stuixnet, his book has an anecdote that in the spring of 1978, Barzan al Tikriti, arrived in Tehran, telling the Shah, they were willing
    to get rid of Khomeini for them, while he was still in Karbala. opportunities lost

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins