Iran's Oil Industry Hit By Cyber Attacks 115
wiredmikey writes "Iran disconnected computer systems at a number of its oil facilities in response to a cyber attack that hit multiple industry targets during the weekend. A source at the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) reportedly told Reuters that a virus was detected inside the control systems of Kharg Island oil terminal, which handles the majority of Iran's crude oil exports. In addition, computer systems at Iran's Oil Ministry and its national oil company were hit. There has been no word on the details of the malware found, but computer systems controlling several of Iran's oil facilities were disconnected from the Internet as a precaution. Oil Ministry spokesman Ali Reza Nikzad-Rahbar told Mehr News Agency on Monday that the attack had not caused significant damage and the worm had been detected before it could infect systems."
Conflict to do with oil is likely caused by the US (Score:1, Interesting)
I think the USA is the more likely culprit. Iran created an oil bourse to trade oil in non-US dollars [wikipedia.org] a few years ago (the same time all those undersea internet trunk lines were "coincidentally" damaged in the Persian Gulf [wikipedia.org]). The US needs to keep people trading oil in their currency at all costs, or the value of the US dollar will drastically drop and hyper-inflation will destroy the economy.
Remember what happened to Iraq when they switched to trading oil from US dollars to the Euro in November 2000: the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better point them at the easygoing admins, who connected the business/mission critical network of PCs to Internet.
Especially now, when there are carpload of solutions for not having everything connected to the same network and yet being able to access the Internet.
Re:I bet the Jews did this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And anyway that word is completely mis-used to denote bigotry against jewish people when in fact semite != jew:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semite [merriam-webster.com]
ITT (Score:5, Insightful)
In this thread, we have a computer at one of Iran's larger oil companies popping up an Avast alert due to an intern attempting to surf porn, and because of policies in place due to stuxnet, the entire computing infrastructure of Iran shuts down as a result. Gotta love spy.v.spy.
had been detected before it could infect systems? (Score:1)
Ummm, was there a virus or not?
Really! (Score:1)
After the charade surrounding the bank hack (mentioned recently on /.) I somehow doubt that the no doubt religiously correct Muslims operating Iran's defensive computer net have the capacity to accurately detect any virus, let alone eradicate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? (Score:2)
How's that for an oxymoron:
Re:Cold war (Score:5, Interesting)
To those who modded me -1 Troll:
What is your explanation for this behaviour? The US and Israel are at war with Iran, invading their air space with drones, surrounding them with military bases and the US Navy, and launching cyber-attacks against their infrastructure. Do they think that if they keep at it Iran will just give up and abandon all nuclear and space research, give up their arms and become a placid non-threatening nation? With Israel still right next door?
How do you think this is going to end? What possible sequence of events could lead to a peaceful resolution? How will attacking Iran make them decide to stop developing nuclear weapons?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recent IT escalation? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Since there are so many with a lack of understanding of technology, sensational headlines and assumptions will be used by propagandists to push their agenda. It's effective.
Re:Recent IT escalation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Occams Razor: Someone accidentally downloaded a virus while surfing at work.
Occams sharper Razor - a bunch of nice people have been downloading virus laden porn and warz at work, just like the rest of the world.
They got caught.
They cooked up a really great excuse: 'It's not my fault!'
Closing the door after the horse has bolted (Score:2)
2011: Stuxnet, Iran takes its nuclear enrichment facilities off the net.
2012: Oil refineries hack, Iran takes its oil refineries off the net.
2013: Iran takes its power plants off the net.
2014: Iran takes its water treatment plants off the net.
2015: Iran takes ...
The sad thing is that other countries are much worse than that, so Iran is actually ahead of the pack.
Re:Closing the door after the horse has bolted (Score:4, Insightful)
Except... nuclear enrichment facilities were not on the net...
Re: (Score:3)
They have found the solution (Score:3)
And that's exactly how all the great "cyberwars" will end.
Well thats how The Naked Gun ended (Score:2)
When Drebin pulled the plug for the nuclear device out of the wall socket and it shut down. Fact following fiction I guess which would be funny if it wasn't so worrying.
Simple rule of thumb. (Score:3, Funny)
DON'T CONNECT CRITICAL SYSTEMS TO THE FUCKING INTERNET!
"Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."
I am yelling.
Quite (Score:2)
You'd think the IT people who work in these sorts of critical installations whever in the world they are would have some vague clue about security. But I guess if there were no internet access they wouldn't be able to spend all day on social networks or surfing p0rn and clearly that takes priority over doing what they're fscking paid to do which is keep major infrastructure running.
Re:Quite (Score:5, Interesting)
You can have Internet access on the computer next to it - what's that got to do with having critical control systems accessible over the Internet?
1) Separate the two PHYSICAL networks.
2) Make sure that there are only authorised devices sit on the control network and NEVER anything else (big, huge, red lights and warnings when something new is detected).
3) Make sure that even pulling the Internet cable out does not in any way affect the control system, and that tampering with the control system or even detecting a single packet destined for or originating from anything other than authorised devices sets off so many warnings people wouldn't even try.
4) IF YOU REALLY MUST - make the control system expose only the absolute minimum of controls (i.e. don't trust user input and act only on a given, set, limited protocol of commands) over an encrypted protocol to only authorised devices from authorised networks that know all the one-time-passwords and whatever else you want to use to secure it. And never expose any interface that has the potential to be compromised autonomously (e.g. web interfaces etc.) - there's no need for it and the interface should NEVER be able to do anything but issue valid commands with all appropriate normal safeguards applied to them.
You do NOT need a general purpose operating system to run a nuclear reactor - it's not only an incredibly bad idea, they warn you against doing things like that in the OS EULA itself because it's JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH and provides too much scope for mischief.
One day, someone is going to end up running a nuclear reactor on Windows or something because they're just too thick to realise that's a problem and the slow creep of GPOS's into our lives will mean they will see nothing wrong with it.
Re: (Score:2)
General purpose OS in reactor operations (Score:2)
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6767 [securityfocus.com]
Not actually touching the reactor, but if you've studied systems safety engineering you know that screwing up a display or warning system is a perfectly adequate way to wreck things.
Re: (Score:1)
Hyperbole, much? (Score:2)
The iranian "oil industry" is doing just fine. This attack was nothing more than a website defacement. Hardly affecting "the industry".
Critical infrastructure systems.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Stuxnet targets were not connected to the internet, that did not save them from being infected.
The problem is that when you remove the network, people start using USB keys to move information and malwares
Are we sure... (Score:2)
How many new programs for Linux? (Score:2)
Assuming this was an attack... (Score:1)
What happens when peace is declared and yet there are latent "weapons" sill self infecting the computers?
What a surprise (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3
I wonder how much of this kind of stuff is the work of 'Anonymous' style vigilantes, who think they should attack anyone and everyone that they don't approve of for some reason.
Perpetual non-state cyberwar may be the future of the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...i'm thinking its the world police.
Oh... you mean U.N.I.T.? Good, then the Doctor's already on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about the US I presume? They seem to be the ones who match your description. :)
Re: (Score:1)
If history has taught us anything, August.
Feel free to post other references for late summer war predictions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_August [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually know what that book is about? (For starters, it doesn't predict anything.)
Re: (Score:1)
actually I just grabbed the first thing that popped up for war and august... but IIRC most conflics in history escalated in late summer... including WWI
Re:how long? (Score:5, Interesting)
before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3
There's almost nothing of any note on Kharq Island any more, most of it was destroyed during the Iran/Iraq war and never rebuilt. Have a look on Google Maps/Earth, there's a handful of oil storage tanks down the southern end, most of them completely empty, and one single ship that's almost certainly a bulk carrier (not an oil ship) docked there. The only reason Iran bothers to maintain a presence there is to extend their territorial claims into the Persian Gulf.
This is some sort of political shenanigans being played by Iran, nothing more.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
how long? before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3
You mean like seeking regional hegemony [theaustralian.com.au], running terrorist campaigns [cfr.org] worldwide [realite-eu.org], threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz [telegraph.co.uk], threaten Europe's energy supplies to freeze people [voiceofthecopts.org], use suicide boats to attack gulf shipping [reuters.com], arm Hezbollah to attack Israel [realite-eu.org] with and ultimate goal of destroying Israel [wiesenthal.com], attack US troops [washingtonpost.com], send suicide bombers to Europe and America [dailycaller.com], aid America's enemies [washingtonpost.com], threaten attacks on nearby countries and cities with missiles [usnews.com], kill diplomats [bangkokpost.com], subvert nearby countries [defenddemocracy.org], unleash the suicide bomb brigad [meforum.org]
...until the US attacks yet another country? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are far too modest in your description, and you started to misspell it. They are no longer the USSR, but Russia. As the world's most heavily armed nuclear state [fas.org], Russia does indeed have a history of adventurism [dailyuw.com], but it stretches back far longer than 20 years, and they specialize in this sort of activity [popsci.com], and know how to treat their helpers [youtube.com].
Re:how long? (Score:5, Informative)
11 years ago.
I suppose you're implicating Iran in the 9/11 attacks, though it's hard to imagine anyone could be so ignorant.
Most of the participants came from "friendly" countries.
Re:how long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the participants came from "friendly" countries.
"Most of the participants came from "friendly" countries." Saudi Arabia is only "friendly" if you are an oil company. It certainly isn't friendly if you are a woman or a Jew. It's funny how billions of dollars in oil can make you a friend no matter how hostile you are.
I'm pretty sure that is why he put quotation marks around the word "friendly" to indicate ironic intent.
Re:how long? (Score:5, Informative)
Saudi Arabia is only "friendly" if you are an oil company.
Then I guess America is the biggest [biyokulule.com] fucking [hermes-press.com] oil company [xinhuanet.com] in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Another could say (Score:3)
Re:Another could say (Score:5, Insightful)
It probably doesn't help that Israel built a giant fucking wall [wikipedia.org] around the entire West Bank, effectively creating a Palestinian ghetto. I guess they learned something from the Nazi's after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Correlation != causation.
2. Attacking those who have stolen and occupied your land are not "terrorist attacks".
You really want to talk about terrorism in the area, you have to first and foremost talk about the IDF. Like bombing Gaza into the stone age when your own military admits that Hamas had stopped firing rockets before Israel broke the cease fire, or how the IDF ordered civilians to take shelter inside a school, and the
Re: (Score:2)
Any attacks aiming purely for civilian targets are terrorists in my book. Whether the Judean desert is stolen and occupied is IMHO a big grey area which I don't want to discuss
As for your accusation of the IDF terrorism, I'll have to go for a [Citation needed]. What could the IDF even gain from just massacring a school with no military target as you suggest?
Re: (Score:2)
Civilians living on land that was stolen from you. Civilians who, thanks to Israel's laws on compulsory military service, are either 1) active duty soldiers defending the occupation 2) future active duty soldiers defending the occupation 3) reservists who can be called back into service to defend the occupation.
And even, then, there is no comparison in the levels of civilian-killing even if you want to call it terrorism. Israelis st
Re: (Score:2)
For now ignoring your first point. Take a look at the top right map of countries with conscription based military [wikipedia.org]. These include my own country and many Islamic and Arab ones. I strongly refuse the notion that anyone that have or might some day serve in the army should be considered legitimate military targets.
This is correct. I also suspect that traffic is a higher cause of death than murder in any country. Which is again second to heart disease diseases [who.int]. However I fail to see how this is relevant. Are you
Re: (Score:2)
And I strongly reject the idea that attacks in response to land theft and occupation are "terrorism". Palestinian attacks are no more terrorism than Sioux attacks on prospectors violating their home and sacred grounds
Re: (Score:2)
This discussion is fruitless. You didn't even respond to any of my main points.
And I never even mentioned the speech you linked to. I was simply referring to their training, arming and funding of several groups that certainly have Israels death on their public agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you haven't even been reading my posts, as I most certainly have been responding to your points - 10 blockquotes in the last post alone.
So which ones, exactly, do you think I've been sidestepping? Go ahead and rattle em off....and then I'll do the same. I don't think you really addressed the PM of Israel celebrating a bombing of a government building in the 40's. Or Israel starting Operation Cast Lead which killed hundreds and left Gaza in ruins, when
Re: (Score:2)
No, they picked this up all by themselves. Jericho [about.com], one of the oldest tells in the Middle East has been a fortress for some 8000 years:
Jericho's reputation in the bible has a strong association with towers and walls--and with good reason. The first walls at Jericho were built during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period, indicating that violence and conflict were important parts of Jericho's history for a very long time.
Nothing new. Same 'ol hairless apes chomping on each other.
Re: (Score:2)
The fence is only in small part built up as a wall, and is mostly just a barbed wire line. Even so, it has served to drastically decrease the number of terror attacks from the WB.
Besides this, there are a few differences between the ghettos of WWII and the west bank.
Wrong on two accounts :) (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how pp would be implicating that. And your imagination is seriously lacking. A majority of Americans at some point believed Saddam was behind 9/11, and in the military it was over 80%.
The claims about Iran aiding Al Qaedy aren't very successful.. On the other hand currently 71% of americans think Iran already has nuclear weapons (CNN nationwide poll, quality of sampling not known). While at the same time the NYTimes has stopped claiming that the west suspects Iran is working on a bomb, as a result of intelligence services speaking out loud enough. The claim has been quietly modified to "Iran might want to use their civilian program to help them to make a bomb later on".
Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe you're overstating things a bit but I roughly agree, and it's called nuclear capability. Iran is fully aware of the military capability of a civilian program, and this is part of their deterrence strategy. This is El Baradei's viewpoint and US and Israeli intelligence agrees with it. It is also a legitimate strategy.
An agreement with Iran would involve keeping the development time to a full bomb as long as possible and the safeguards as thorough as possible. The real sticking point lies elsewhere: normalization of relations with Iran will make them a regional player. Unfortunately that's happening anyway so the question for the US is whether they want to be part of it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're overstating things a bit but I roughly agree, and it's called nuclear capability. Iran is fully aware of the military capability of a civilian program, and this is part of their deterrence strategy. This is El Baradei's viewpoint and US and Israeli intelligence agrees with it. It is also a legitimate strategy.
An agreement with Iran would involve keeping the development time to a full bomb as long as possible and the safeguards as thorough as possible. The real sticking point lies elsewhere: normalization of relations with Iran will make them a regional player. Unfortunately that's happening anyway so the question for the US is whether they want to be part of it or not.
Hmmm. I'm thinking Iran will *never* be allowed to become a regional player as long as the mullahs are in charge, because another group of religious zealots with nuclear capability is the last thing this planet needs. If economic and political measures fail to dislodge the mullahs in Iran, then military action to force a regime change will be the logical next step. Frankly, the US is *already* prepared to take that step. The Obama administration has made it abundantly clear, though, that no direct milit
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think many policymakers care about the religious zealot issue. Not with Iran. It's little more than power politics. Iran wants an independent course. For Israel the goal is to keep Iran small and to drive(maintain) a wedge between Iran and the US. For the US it's more complicated. The more hegemonic style of thinking in the US wants full control, that means keep Iran under your thumb, and try to install a more pliant regime instead. This style overlaps with pro-Israel thinking and lobbying. The more
Re: (Score:2)
If you want an example (from today)contradicting the 'religious zealots' thinking: IDF chief of staff Bruno Gantz http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-chief-to-haaretz-i-do-not-believe-iran-will-decide-to-develop-nuclear-weapons-1.426389 [haaretz.com]
Re:Wrong on two accounts :) (Score:4, Informative)
You're definitely far overstating the issue here...
A real civilian nuclear program simply cannot be used to create a bomb as-is. All of that complex and expensive technology needed to enrich uranium is not needed for regular reactor fuel. And, beyond that, actually building the bomb once you have the materials is definitely not "so simple" a task as you seem to think. The theory of how a "gun-type" bomb works might be, relatively speaking, simple, but the implementation of that theory is far from it. It takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of skill. If you actually want your bomb to detonate instead of just blow up like a pipe bomb, you need to carefully engineer the thing with very tight tolerances.
The real trouble and the real danger is that you can convert a civilian nuclear program or build upon it and create the tools and facilities needed for a military nuclear program. I really don't know what sort of program Iran might have or how far along it could be. Certainly, the Israelis seem to think it is real and very active. Proper monitoring could, conceivably, keep the civilian program in check and make sure it doesn't get used improperly. But, if Iran is hell bent on creating a bomb, I suppose there are a lot of ways they could hide it. I've read reports and rumors in the paper that Iran is building underground facilities to hold the bomb making gear.
who needs fission when you have slagged fuel rods? (Score:3)
you can kill more, more slowly, before anybody catches on, with a dirty bomb.
basically five pounds of nucleide dust hermetically sealed with a bunch of BBs and high explosive.
takes a lot of expertise to send a ballistic missle 2400 miles and hit the equivalent of a Volkswagen for maximum effect with a fission weapon..
takes two gomers sneaking across the border with a backpack and climbing some half-decent TV tower to do the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Regular reactor fuel, in the usual light water power reactors, is enriched to 3%. The technology of enrichment is needed. To go beyond 3% to weapons grade, just run the centrifuges longer.
However, not everyone needs the technology: people with pure motives could simply buy enriched fuel from someone who already has the infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Dirty bombs maybe, but not a real nuke. And no, you are not going to be able to make them in "any metalworking shop". Because of the radioactive decay, specialized everything is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The poll I was referring to is two years old, so it could use an update.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/19/cnn-poll-american-believe-iran-has-nuclear-weapons/ [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how pp would be implicating that. And your imagination is seriously lacking. A majority of Americans at some point believed Saddam was behind 9/11, and in the military it was over 80%.
The claims about Iran aiding Al Qaedy aren't very successful.. On the other hand currently 71% of americans think Iran already has nuclear weapons (CNN nationwide poll, quality of sampling not known). While at the same time the NYTimes has stopped claiming that the west suspects Iran is working on a bomb, as a result of intelligence services speaking out loud enough. The claim has been quietly modified to "Iran might want to use their civilian program to help them to make a bomb later on".
The west doesn't suspect Iran is working on a bomb? For the tldr; version skip to section L. [iaea.org]
50. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.
51. The Agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, as explained in GOV/2011/65. Iran did not provide access to Parchin, as requested by the Agency during its two recent visits to Tehran, and no agreement was reached with Iran on a structured approach to resolving all outstanding issues in connection with Iran’s nuclear programme.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, US and Israeli intelligence - with all the uncertainties that come with such assessment - say that whatever there was, stopped or mostly stopped in 2003 . The NYTimes talks about it eg here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com] . The confusion is normal because Western intelligence contracticts everything you hear so how can it take in account the IAEA. This confusion is especially large with the press themselves because they've bee
So are Opinion Polls now facts? (Score:2)
I really don't get your point. Facts are what back things like "Iran aiding al-Qaeda", not an opinion poll.
Fact: Weapons and explosives have been tracked from al-Qaeda to Iran.
Fact: Pakistan has been harboring al-Qaeda for more than a decade.
Fact: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran all have and have had training camps for terrorism. While it is questionable that they are Government sanctioned or not, the fact is that they were there.
I really don't give a rats ass about what some moron that follows
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose you're implicating Iran in the 9/11 attacks, though it's hard to imagine anyone could be so ignorant.
Well most people still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. With the push for war against Iran I wouldn't be surprised more people started to beleive that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how long? Windows (Score:1, Funny)
That should teach Iran to not use windows on their computers.