U.S, Israel developed Flame virus to slow Iranian nuclear efforts, officials say(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
U.S, Israel developed Flame virus to slow Iranian nuclear efforts, officials say
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-israel-developed-computer-virus-to-slow-iranian-nuclear-efforts-officials-say/2012/06/19/gJQA6xBPoV_story.html
46 comments
I find it quite ironic that both this article and the nsa one are on the front page at the same time. Something that is supposedly top-secret is leaking all over the place, while something that ought to be open is completely clamped down shut.
I guess China is now free to create their own shitware to slow American economic recovery no? The supremacist attitudes in our country are unbounded.
I'm inclined to think that regardless of the actor responsible for this, the only thing that has changed with regard to 'cyberthreats' is that this work which is thought to be the work of a state actor, has become public and that the method has changed a bit. It's not as if the Chinese (or the US or whomever) were not spearfishing each other or using other methods to extricate sensitive information.
One other difference is that this is equivalent to low-grade but effective sabotage. I guess we can expect more of this kind of sabotage, yet, it's not as though there aren't state actors and non-state actors attempting this kind of sabotage for either economic, political, military or other reasons on a routine basis.
I also imagine there are tacit rules by which they 'play'. That is, some is expected, some frowned upon, but seen as par for the cyber course, but other things might be seen as totally off-limits (like remotely sabotaging a reservoir's gates sitting atop a city). That's to say, this form does not involve collateral killings. So, in some ways, it may be preferable to the 'magnetic' bombs alternative which have been used to slow the Iranian atomic program.
One other difference is that this is equivalent to low-grade but effective sabotage. I guess we can expect more of this kind of sabotage, yet, it's not as though there aren't state actors and non-state actors attempting this kind of sabotage for either economic, political, military or other reasons on a routine basis.
I also imagine there are tacit rules by which they 'play'. That is, some is expected, some frowned upon, but seen as par for the cyber course, but other things might be seen as totally off-limits (like remotely sabotaging a reservoir's gates sitting atop a city). That's to say, this form does not involve collateral killings. So, in some ways, it may be preferable to the 'magnetic' bombs alternative which have been used to slow the Iranian atomic program.
If USA had threatened China with destruction and had been known to actively work towards that goal, then yes, China would be right to resist. This is not the case, and therefore your question is invalid. (It also smells like the party line of anti-Americanism, which is sad to witness on HN.)
[deleted]
China has been targeting U.S. private and government computer systems for at least a decade now. Not to slow it down, but to steal data and IP.
China don't want to slow the US economic recovery. They need Americans keeping their factories chugging along while they try to build their own consumer 'middle' class.
More likely China will be looking into Flame's technology as to how they can BETTER access US military and business secrets to drive their own capabilities.
More likely China will be looking into Flame's technology as to how they can BETTER access US military and business secrets to drive their own capabilities.
Bad example. China benefits from a strong US economy. At most, I would expect China to continue to focus on electronic warfare, and not attempt to undermine their largest customer without provocation.
Russia however might decide that it doesn't like competition in the international oil and gas market.
Plus it: a) is the only other victim of a state cyber attack, b) has the technical ability to do it AND c) is crazy enough to think that is a good idea .
Plus it: a) is the only other victim of a state cyber attack, b) has the technical ability to do it AND c) is crazy enough to think that is a good idea .
Government of Israel and the United States: Rationally protecting themselves with electronic warfare
Russia: Crazy enough to launch cyber attacks.
Nice doublespeak.
Russia: Crazy enough to launch cyber attacks.
Nice doublespeak.
I think it's believed that Russia has not been shy about engaging in cyberwarfare with what it considers its legacy but renegade sphere of influence. I don't see how this would be "a new development" for Russia.
DDos-ing Estonia is one thing, taking out an American/Canadian/Norwegian gas pipeline is slightly more serious
God forbid some other country in the region acquire nuclear technology.
I find it exceedingly hypocritical and pathetic that Israel wants to stop the spread of nuclear arms in the Middle East when it's sitting on the only (massive) stockpile.
I find it exceedingly hypocritical and pathetic that Israel wants to stop the spread of nuclear arms in the Middle East when it's sitting on the only (massive) stockpile.
It's not hypocrisy, it's sound International Relations theory.
Israel, for various reasons, is not a power-projecting entity in the Middle East as it has displayed no strategic desire to exert hegemonic influence over the surrounding region. Its strategic posture is primarily defensive, so accordingly its nuclear strategy is also defensive. This is why Israel's neighbours are not massively concerned about its nuclear stockpile.
Iran's government and military on the other hand have openly stated the country's regional hegemonic strategic ambitions. It wishes to weaken the Sunni Arab balance of power (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc) that has held sway over the region for the past few decades. Hence it should be regarded as a state which wishes to project power over its neighbours and become the primary influence in the region.
That difference in strategic outlook makes all the difference in the world, because it means that Iran is likely to use its nuclear capability as a protective umbrella under which it can undermine the Middle East's most powerful countries without fear of retaliation.
This is why the Wikileaks memos showed that most strong Arab powers were secretly in support of American or Israeli action against Iran. An unbalanced Middle East and an Iran free to use its proxies such as Hezbollah against whoever it chooses represent grave strategic threats to every established power in the Middle East. Any additional chaos in turn is dangerous for Israel, as are an unleashed Hezbollah and Hamas.
That's why it makes perfect sense for Israel to oppose Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons despite having an arsenal of its own and why other countries, including most of the EU, are more concerned about Iran building nuclear weapons than they are about Israel already having them.
Israel, for various reasons, is not a power-projecting entity in the Middle East as it has displayed no strategic desire to exert hegemonic influence over the surrounding region. Its strategic posture is primarily defensive, so accordingly its nuclear strategy is also defensive. This is why Israel's neighbours are not massively concerned about its nuclear stockpile.
Iran's government and military on the other hand have openly stated the country's regional hegemonic strategic ambitions. It wishes to weaken the Sunni Arab balance of power (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc) that has held sway over the region for the past few decades. Hence it should be regarded as a state which wishes to project power over its neighbours and become the primary influence in the region.
That difference in strategic outlook makes all the difference in the world, because it means that Iran is likely to use its nuclear capability as a protective umbrella under which it can undermine the Middle East's most powerful countries without fear of retaliation.
This is why the Wikileaks memos showed that most strong Arab powers were secretly in support of American or Israeli action against Iran. An unbalanced Middle East and an Iran free to use its proxies such as Hezbollah against whoever it chooses represent grave strategic threats to every established power in the Middle East. Any additional chaos in turn is dangerous for Israel, as are an unleashed Hezbollah and Hamas.
That's why it makes perfect sense for Israel to oppose Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons despite having an arsenal of its own and why other countries, including most of the EU, are more concerned about Iran building nuclear weapons than they are about Israel already having them.
Israel, for various reasons, is not a power-projecting entity in the Middle East as it has displayed no strategic desire to exert hegemonic influence over the surrounding region.
Rubbish. Are the Palestinian people nothing to you?
Rubbish. Are the Palestinian people nothing to you?
Not in the geopolitical sense being discussed here, no. Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Sinai in the '67 war all make sense as a strategic measure to acquire a defensive buffer. The 1973 war proved its necessity, as with the forces arrayed against it Israel came close to defeat and may well have lost had it not possessed the additional territory.
Bear in mind this has nothing to do with whether a country is morally right or wrong in its actions. One can disagree strongly with Isreal's treatment of the Palestinians and demand reform while still recognising the strategic imperatives that led to its actions and its inherently defensive strategic posture.
Bear in mind this has nothing to do with whether a country is morally right or wrong in its actions. One can disagree strongly with Isreal's treatment of the Palestinians and demand reform while still recognising the strategic imperatives that led to its actions and its inherently defensive strategic posture.
This is like saying you would have been okay with Hitlers whole plan to get some Lebensraum if only he hadn't killed all those people to get it.
Face the facts: Israel is promoting apartheid conditions in the region, upon a mass of population that it has no legal right to do so. Why on earth would anyone who lives in the region, who wants stability in the region, trust the nuclear-armed state of Israel if it is continuing to kill innocents in its quest for power?
Face the facts: Israel is promoting apartheid conditions in the region, upon a mass of population that it has no legal right to do so. Why on earth would anyone who lives in the region, who wants stability in the region, trust the nuclear-armed state of Israel if it is continuing to kill innocents in its quest for power?
I'm disappointed that Godwin's Law appeared so soon, the circumstances are not even remotely comparable.
As I said above, this isn't about morality or whether Israel is right or wrong to occupy the West Bank, because that is not a real factor in this particular geopolitical strategic situation. This is purely about relative strategic postures and their implications for the Middle East.
There is no cognitive dissonance in holding the views that Israel is a defensive nuclear power posing no threat to its neighbours, but its treatment of the Palestinians is wrong, and Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons. In fact that's the view held by many EU member states.
It can be argued that the Palestinian situation contributes to instability and should be fairly resolved for that reason alone, but that does not and should not factor into an objective assessment of Iran's nuclear program. Iran seeks nuclear weapons because it wants to become the dominant power in the region and assume hegemony over its Arab neighbours, not because it worries about Palestinians.
The fact that most of the Arab powers in the region are more afraid of Iran's nuclear program than they are of Israel's existing arsenal should be evidence enough of how those who live in the region, want stability in the region and have something to lose are willing to trust Israel's nuclear posture.
As I said above, this isn't about morality or whether Israel is right or wrong to occupy the West Bank, because that is not a real factor in this particular geopolitical strategic situation. This is purely about relative strategic postures and their implications for the Middle East.
There is no cognitive dissonance in holding the views that Israel is a defensive nuclear power posing no threat to its neighbours, but its treatment of the Palestinians is wrong, and Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons. In fact that's the view held by many EU member states.
It can be argued that the Palestinian situation contributes to instability and should be fairly resolved for that reason alone, but that does not and should not factor into an objective assessment of Iran's nuclear program. Iran seeks nuclear weapons because it wants to become the dominant power in the region and assume hegemony over its Arab neighbours, not because it worries about Palestinians.
The fact that most of the Arab powers in the region are more afraid of Iran's nuclear program than they are of Israel's existing arsenal should be evidence enough of how those who live in the region, want stability in the region and have something to lose are willing to trust Israel's nuclear posture.
I'm disappointed that Godwin's Law appeared so soon, the circumstances are not even remotely comparable.
Well, I beg you to see it from the perspective of the men, women and children who are currently imprisoned in the worlds largest open-air concentration camp. And frankly, that you cannot see the similarities belies a lot about your bias in this argument.
As I said above, this isn't about morality or whether Israel is right or wrong to occupy the West Bank, because that is not a real factor in this particular geopolitical strategic situation. This is purely about relative strategic postures and their implications for the Middle East.
Israel could solve all of its foreign policy problems if it let the populations in the West Bank have access to fresh, clean water. If they stopped encouraging the criminal settlers from encroaching on the lebensraum of the populations who were there before them (i.e. gave back the homes stolen). There is a lot more that could be done by Israel to settle tempers in the Mid East, besides writing viruses and attacking other, peaceful nations, rights to clean nuclear power.
Well, I beg you to see it from the perspective of the men, women and children who are currently imprisoned in the worlds largest open-air concentration camp. And frankly, that you cannot see the similarities belies a lot about your bias in this argument.
As I said above, this isn't about morality or whether Israel is right or wrong to occupy the West Bank, because that is not a real factor in this particular geopolitical strategic situation. This is purely about relative strategic postures and their implications for the Middle East.
Israel could solve all of its foreign policy problems if it let the populations in the West Bank have access to fresh, clean water. If they stopped encouraging the criminal settlers from encroaching on the lebensraum of the populations who were there before them (i.e. gave back the homes stolen). There is a lot more that could be done by Israel to settle tempers in the Mid East, besides writing viruses and attacking other, peaceful nations, rights to clean nuclear power.
> Well, I beg you to see it from the perspective of the men, women and children who are currently imprisoned in the worlds largest open-air concentration camp.
This "camp" is interesting. Israel doesn't control all of the sides, yet you insist that Israel is imprisoning these folks.
> Israel could solve all of its foreign policy problems if it let the populations in the West Bank have access to fresh, clean water.
How about some supporting evidence for that claim?
I note that the PLO turned down a separate state that wasn't big enough to suit them. And, why can't they develop their own access to fresh clean water, just as everyone else in the region has done?
What? Only the Israelis have clean fresh water? What's stopping everyone else?
It's always the Joooos.
This "camp" is interesting. Israel doesn't control all of the sides, yet you insist that Israel is imprisoning these folks.
> Israel could solve all of its foreign policy problems if it let the populations in the West Bank have access to fresh, clean water.
How about some supporting evidence for that claim?
I note that the PLO turned down a separate state that wasn't big enough to suit them. And, why can't they develop their own access to fresh clean water, just as everyone else in the region has done?
What? Only the Israelis have clean fresh water? What's stopping everyone else?
It's always the Joooos.
Israel maintains the Gaza Strip and West Bank as administrative regions under its domain. It does control the conditions in those areas, and does in fact impose apartheid conditions on millions of inhabitants of that region.
No, fresh water is not available to the Palestinians in Israels camps. Israel regularly diverts water from those populations for use by its settlers.
No, fresh water is not available to the Palestinians in Israels camps. Israel regularly diverts water from those populations for use by its settlers.
> Israel maintains the Gaza Strip and West Bank as administrative regions under its domain.
So? Israel doesn't keep anyone from leaving via other borders.
> No, fresh water is not available to the Palestinians in Israels camps.
Thanks for agreeing that your claim that giving them fresh water would solve all problems is wrong.
So? Israel doesn't keep anyone from leaving via other borders.
> No, fresh water is not available to the Palestinians in Israels camps.
Thanks for agreeing that your claim that giving them fresh water would solve all problems is wrong.
Going the extra mile to prevent a country which is your avowed enemy and an avid supporter of major international terrorist organizations is not "hypocritical" it's the very definition of sanity.
The Iranians are decent people on the whole. The Iranian regime is not the sort of organization you want having control of anything sharper than a crayon.
The Iranians are decent people on the whole. The Iranian regime is not the sort of organization you want having control of anything sharper than a crayon.
wellwellwell(1)
Russians are somewhat nice people too, but their regimes from 1900 until now, scares the sh*t out of me, more than any other regime, ever. I think we should take their nukes away from them as soon as possible.
> I find it exceedingly hypocritical and pathetic that Israel wants to stop the spread of nuclear arms in the Middle East when it's sitting on the only (massive) stockpile.
Israel neighbors have made it pretty clear that they want to destroy the state of Israel and have tried many times. Iran is the top sponsor of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah that launch rockets daily on Israel. Israel on the other hand has never called for the destruction of any of its neighbors. So it seems fair that Israel doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons while at the same times it's understandable that Israel wants to defends itself by getting nukes for themselves for deterrence reasons. I'm from Syria by the way (half)...
Israel neighbors have made it pretty clear that they want to destroy the state of Israel and have tried many times. Iran is the top sponsor of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah that launch rockets daily on Israel. Israel on the other hand has never called for the destruction of any of its neighbors. So it seems fair that Israel doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons while at the same times it's understandable that Israel wants to defends itself by getting nukes for themselves for deterrence reasons. I'm from Syria by the way (half)...
> Israel on the other hand has never called for the destruction of any of its neighbors.
Not true. But this political debate is probably not for HN
Not true. But this political debate is probably not for HN
How about one single quote from a leader of Israel stating that Iran must be completely wiped from the face of the Earth? And that the Muslim people must all be murdered, because they're a cancerous blight. Can't find a quote like that? Didn't think so.
Spot quiz: whats the difference between "the Zionist regime" and "Israel"?
> Spot quiz: whats the difference between "the Zionist regime" and "Israel"?
I realize you're trying to make the point that the quote was "wipe the Zionist regime" off the map, not "wipe Israel off the map".
Unfortunately, for this particular context of your spot quiz, the two terms are by definition linked:
> "Zionism is a form of nationalism ... that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel."
Your pop quiz is trying to make a difference between the head of the snake and the body of the snake. Either way, the idea is to get rid of the snake.
I realize you're trying to make the point that the quote was "wipe the Zionist regime" off the map, not "wipe Israel off the map".
Unfortunately, for this particular context of your spot quiz, the two terms are by definition linked:
> "Zionism is a form of nationalism ... that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel."
Your pop quiz is trying to make a difference between the head of the snake and the body of the snake. Either way, the idea is to get rid of the snake.
since "Zionist" is defined as the movement that believes Israel should exist, you can perform the substitution, and come up with "Wipe the regime that believes Israel should exist" off the map.
I don't think there really is a distinction.
I don't think there really is a distinction.
Nice try, but Zionism refers to the movement which believes that Israel should be a purely Jewish state - i.e. if you are not a Jew, you don't belong in Israel, or at least: you have a lesser status than Jews. Its nice for your argument to conflate Israel with Zionism - and after all, 80% of the population of Israel do this too - but its not nice for the few million non-Jews living in Apartheid conditions as a result of this movement. And that is the point of Irans official position.
Israel is in a position of strength. Why do you find it surprising that they want to maintain that position?
Countries struggle for power. It's how politics works.
Countries struggle for power. It's how politics works.
It is not hypocritical, nuclear politics has nothing to do with playing nice. And in the Israeli case this is complicated by geography, since Israel would be cut in half by a single bomb.
Maybe. But it's pretty easy to understand why Israel and the Western world would want to stop Iran getting nukes.
I don't recall Israel stating an intention to obliterate the people of Iran with nuclear genocide. In fact, Israel has shown superhuman levels of restraint, when faced with a psychotic theocracy that talks about mass murdering Jews every day of the week.
If Israel had desired to do so, they could have glassed the entire Middle East a long time ago, and there is nobody that could or would do anything about it. Samson says so.
If Israel had desired to do so, they could have glassed the entire Middle East a long time ago, and there is nobody that could or would do anything about it. Samson says so.
Sourcing unnamed 'western officials' doesn't lend this too much credibility, however this could have grave consequences for how governments deal with communication networks, and therefore the internet
Wasn't that kind of obvious after the discovered similarities that suggested "cooperation" between Flame and Stux developers? Pandoras box is open, will be interesting to see what follows.
The "Israel April attacks" mentioned in the text:
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-85701335473868/
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-85701335473868/
In other news - "vatican inhabitant with big hat is a catholic shock"