• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Massive cyber attack on Iran came from U.S., report says

Connery

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
5,134
Reaction score
6,123
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"It reads like a riveting sci-fi novel, but it's stunningly real: A super-sophisticated malicious computer virus burrowed its way into Iran's nuclear facilities and took down several parts of the operation. Oh, and it apparently came from us.

In 2010, it was the U.S. who launched Stuxnet, a seek-and-destroy cyber missile so sophisticated that some briefly thought it might have an other-than-earthly origin, against Iran's nuclear infrastructure, according to a New York Times report. The virus was, in fact, created jointly by the U.S. and Israel.

In his first months in office, President Obama covertly ordered sophisticated attacks on the computers that ran Iran's nuclear facilities, upping U.S. use of cyber weaponry in a sustained attack, the newspaper said.

Early on, a programming error allowed the worm to escape Iran's Natanz plant and whoosh around the world on the Internet.

"Should we shut this thing down?" Obama asked, members of his national security team who were in the room told the paper.

Ultimately, the super worm was left to wreak its havoc, and it took out 1,000 of 5,000 centrifuges Iran was using to enhance uranium, according to the report. It was as effective as a bomb or agents infiltrating country's nuclear facilities to plant explosives, the report said."

Massive cyber attack on Iran came from U.S., report says - latimes.com

Could this be considered an overt act of cyber... war....

What other implications....
 
Last edited:
If this is true the cyber attacks are clearly acts of war under the internationally accepted definition. When one commits an act of war it's usually advisable to expect a response from the other belligerent.
 
Stuxnet also Bush's fault. Originally activated under the code name Olympic Games.
 
If this is true the cyber attacks are clearly acts of war under the internationally accepted definition. When one commits an act of war it's usually advisable to expect a response from the other belligerent.

According to the article, "only recently has the government acknowledged developing cyber-weapons, though it has never admitted deploying them."
 
I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, if we can stop or slow down Iran's obvious race to obtain nuclear weapons without resorting to physical confrontation, I'm okay with that. On the other hand, I'm deeply concerned that these viruses we are introducing can be reverse-engineered and unleashed back on us.

A scary world we live in. :(
 
It's certainly a better option than high explosives.
 
Since the only thing damaged here was Iran's capability for producing nuclear weapons, I think I won't be shedding a lot of tears over this.
 
I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, if we can stop or slow down Iran's obvious race to obtain nuclear weapons without resorting to physical confrontation, I'm okay with that. On the other hand, I'm deeply concerned that these viruses we are introducing can be reverse-engineered and unleashed back on us.

A scary world we live in. :(




The program was reverse engineered in Culver City, California by a company called Symantec by their Threat Intelligence Team by a Frenchman named Nicolas Falliere. After much work on the project Stuxnet is called a one-shot weapon. "The attackers had to bet on the assumption that the victim had no clue about cybersecurity, and that no independent third party would successfully analyze the weapon and make results public early, thereby giving the victim a chance to defuse the weapon in time.”
How Digital Detectives Deciphered Stuxnet, the Most Menacing Malware in History | Threat Level | Wired.com

It would appear that, while Stuxnet may show up again or as a redesigned virus, it is an open source virus these days.
Stuxnet: Anatomy of a Computer Virus (The First Open-Source Weapon)
 
"It reads like a riveting sci-fi novel, but it's stunningly real: A super-sophisticated malicious computer virus burrowed its way into Iran's nuclear facilities and took down several parts of the operation. Oh, and it apparently came from us.

In 2010, it was the U.S. who launched Stuxnet, a seek-and-destroy cyber missile so sophisticated that some briefly thought it might have an other-than-earthly origin, against Iran's nuclear infrastructure, according to a New York Times report. The virus was, in fact, created jointly by the U.S. and Israel.

In his first months in office, President Obama covertly ordered sophisticated attacks on the computers that ran Iran's nuclear facilities, upping U.S. use of cyber weaponry in a sustained attack, the newspaper said.

Early on, a programming error allowed the worm to escape Iran's Natanz plant and whoosh around the world on the Internet.

"Should we shut this thing down?" Obama asked, members of his national security team who were in the room told the paper.

Ultimately, the super worm was left to wreak its havoc, and it took out 1,000 of 5,000 centrifuges Iran was using to enhance uranium, according to the report. It was as effective as a bomb or agents infiltrating country's nuclear facilities to plant explosives, the report said."

Massive cyber attack on Iran came from U.S., report says - latimes.com

Could this be considered an overt act of cyber... war....

What other implications....

Congratulations, USA!
 
Since the only thing damaged here was Iran's capability for producing nuclear weapons, I think I won't be shedding a lot of tears over this.

The problem is that if this did come from the US gov or even private entities specifically to attack a country in some capacity, then we can't exactly be outraged when some other country reciprocates in kind and attacks the USA.
 
The problem is that if this did come from the US gov or even private entities specifically to attack a country in some capacity, then we can't exactly be outraged when some other country reciprocates in kind and attacks the USA.

Who cares about outrage, I want preparedness. The US has been under "attack" before, albeit, low tech in the form of espionage, sabotage, using aircraft as missiles flying into buildings etc. The virus was a very useful weapon against an entity that wants to blow us up.
 
Who cares about outrage, I want preparedness. The US has been under "attack" before, albeit, low tech in the form of espionage, sabotage, using aircraft as missiles flying into buildings etc. The virus was a very useful weapon against an entity that wants to blow us up.

It doesn't matter who was attacked in this instance, only that an international precedent is being set, and that the USA will have no moral high ground to protest any such attacks upon them.
 
It doesn't matter who was attacked in this instance, only that an international precedent is being set, and that the USA will have no moral high ground to protest any such attacks upon them.

Perhaps they should just let the Iranians have the "moral high ground".

Who would listen to any American protests anyway?
 
If Iran had launched a similar virus against the US, we would consider it an act of war.
 
It doesn't matter who was attacked in this instance, only that an international precedent is being set, and that the USA will have no moral high ground to protest any such attacks upon them.

There is precedent and this is not the only time IIRC...in 1982 "...the United States discovered that Russia was stealing data on United States technology..."

To illustrate the destructive capability of Stuxnet, the researchers referenced an oft-cited 1982 CIA digital attack on the Siberian pipeline that resulted in an explosion a fifth the size of the atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima. According to the never-substantiated story, the United States discovered that Russia was stealing data on United States technology. So the CIA hatched a plot to insert a logic bomb into software that the agency knew the Russians were purchasing from a Canadian firm to operate pumps and valves on their natural gas pipeline. The equipment worked fine initially, but at a preprogrammed point, it caused valves in the pipeline to malfunction, creating a pressure buildup that exploded into a fireball so large it was captured by orbiting satellites.
How Digital Detectives Deciphered Stuxnet, the Most Menacing Malware in History | Threat Level | Wired.com
 
Perhaps they should just let the Iranians have the "moral high ground".

Who would listen to any American protests anyway?

I would say the majority of technologically advanced countries would side with the USA if they were cyber-attacked, as their countries could just as easily be next. Iran is not out concern. The people in the mid-east should worry about it, not us. As soon as they have the ability to reach USA with a nuclear payload, then we will worry about them. till then, why the **** do we care?
 
I would say the majority of technologically advanced countries would side with the USA if they were cyber-attacked, as their countries could just as easily be next. Iran is not out concern. The people in the mid-east should worry about it, not us. As soon as they have the ability to reach USA with a nuclear payload, then we will worry about them. till then, why the **** do we care?

Should the US sit and twiddle it's thumbs or act responsibly in threat assessment and protection?
 
Should the US sit and twiddle it's thumbs or act responsibly in threat assessment and protection?

Like the bang up job we did with Iraq?
 
I would say the majority of technologically advanced countries would side with the USA if they were cyber-attacked, as their countries could just as easily be next. Iran is not out concern. The people in the mid-east should worry about it, not us. As soon as they have the ability to reach USA with a nuclear payload, then we will worry about them. till then, why the **** do we care?

The world has become a great deal smaller through technology and thus any country can be a concern, including Iran. Don't expect the department of defense to ask your advice any time soon.
 
Should the US sit and twiddle it's thumbs or act responsibly in threat assessment and protection?

USA no longer has the financial ability to babysit the entire world. Recall the argument for the Iraq war was via threat assessment and protection. How did that work out? Do you seriously think anyone is dumb enough to believe that Iran having nukes is somehow more dangerous than China or Pakistan?
 
USA no longer has the financial ability to babysit the entire world. Recall the argument for the Iraq war was via threat assessment and protection. How did that work out? Do you seriously think anyone is dumb enough to believe that Iran having nukes is somehow more dangerous than China or Pakistan?

Launching cyber attacks and drone missiles is cheap and easy. China should not be included with Iran and Pakistan.
 
Launching cyber attacks and drone missiles is cheap and easy. China should not be included with Iran and Pakistan.

Why shouldn't they? I'd put north korea on there, too.

Though china is much less likely than iran to attack some american interest with nuclear weaponry, they have such q powerful compliment of weaponry and technology they could do far more damage. Hence, as a threat, they far supersede iran who probably isn't even within 10 years of making a single bomb and has not a prayer in hell of effectively using the bomb they make beyond relatively short range.
 
Back
Top Bottom