New analysis says Stuxnet created by a Western power and distributed by Israel

Stuxnet: Cyber attack on Iran ‘was carried out by Western powers and Israel’ – Telegraph

“It was most likely developed by a Western power, and they most likely provided it to a secondary power which completed the effort,” he told

The malicious software, first detected in June last year, was almost certainly designed to make damaging, surreptitious adjustments to the centrifuges used at Natanz, Iran’s uranium enrichment site. While he downplayed its impact, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has confirmed Stuxnet set back his nuclear ambitions.

Separate investigations by US nuclear experts have discovered that Stuxnet worked by increasing the speed of uranium centrifuges to breaking point for short periods. At the same time it shut off safety monitoring systems, hoodwinking operators that all was normal.

Mr Parker found that this part of the attack must have been conceived by “some very talented individuals”, and the other by a less talented, or more rushed, group of developers.

The element written by the first group, which was activated after Stuxnet reached its target and is known as the “payload”, is very complex, well designed and effective, according to Mr Parker’s analysis. He believes this is evidence of the involvment of a major Western power or powers – potentially including Britain – because they have both the scarce cyber expertise, and access to the tightly-regulated nuclear equipment necessary to test the virus.

In contrast, the way Stuxnet was distributed and its “command and control” features, which allow it to be remotely altered, include many errors and are poorly protected from surveillance.

“It’s a bit like spending billions on a space shuttle and then launching it using the remote control from a £15 toy car,” said Mr Parker.

His criticisms of Stuxnet’s distribution mechanism, presented this week at the Black Hat computer security conference in Washington DC, are supported by other experts, including Nate Lawson, a computer encryption consultant.

“Either the authors did not care if the payload was discovered by the general public, they weren’t aware of these techniques, or they had other limitations, such as time,” said Mr Lawson.

 

However, the apparently cheap wrapping of an expensive package points to Israel as the distributing power, said Mr Parker.

Each of the two stages of the Stuxnet operation demanded different resources to succeed. Stuxnet’s distributors may not have had the elite software engineering abilities of those responsible for the payload, but according to President Ahmadinejad, they hit their target.

 


WordPresser
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.

2 comments on “New analysis says Stuxnet created by a Western power and distributed by Israel

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. George Jochnowitz wrote:

    Iran’s government was trying to get the country bombed so that a war would break out. Poor Ahmadinejad! All he got was Stuxnet.

    yeah, this non-bombing of Iran may work well for us and poorly for them.
    but if they try real hard, they may still managed to get bombed.
    we’re pretty likely to see bombs going off in Iran in the near future.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

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

*

Related

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

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins