U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#161

Post by jessaustin » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

artiste wrote: post #156

jessaustin wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rational people are often confused by the war media's agitation for war. The reason for the confusion is they are lying to us . Whenever I'm confused by the war media, I conclude they must be trying to start another war. They're pressing this button too often, though. Compare the results in Syria to those in Libya...

Genuinely asking: what is their motive behind this?

Assuming "their" refers to the war media, motives vary. Younger folks are just trying not to get fired. (Those who haven't even gotten hired yet have to cultivate a very careful Twitter persona even to be considered.) More experienced journalists can't get frozen out by official sources, whether that's the spooks, the brass, the lobbyist-owned politicians, or the surveillance-owned politicians. Editors/producers/executives have to worry about pissing off big advertisers. Lots of people on the talking-head shows are think-tankers, intellectually totally beholden to whatever shadowy reptiles have funded their sinecures and sabbaticals. Even if motives went the other way, at this point habit keeps them doing their masters' bidding, as witnessed by the schizophrenia regarding Julian Assange.

But, really, asking about motives is just another way to ignore this. Motives will always be squishy and deniable. Look at what actually happens. They lied us into Vietnam with the Tonkin Gulf Deception. They lied us into the First Gulf War with the incubator babies. They lied us into the Second Gulf War with WMDs. We went to war in Afghanistan and Osama turned out to be in Pakistan. They lied us into Libya with some random exiles living in Switzerland plus a French philosopher. They lied us into Syria (thankfully not all the way) with gas attacks staged by our ally Al-Qaeda. They're trying to lie us into Venezuela with a recession caused by our own sanctions plus staged attacks on soi-disant "aid convoys". Now they're trying to justify a war with Iran with a video of CIA operatives in a boat. If you prefer older history, "remember the Maine!" was also a lie.

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#162

Post by ShorsHammer » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

speedplane wrote: post #102

ShorsHammer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US plays "fairly" in international relations? Honestly amazed if anyone truly stands by that statement. The irony of mentioning treaties too. That's some next level true believer stuff. Would love to have a chat about: * Chemical weapons convention * Mine ban treaty * Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court * Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty * Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty * Biological and Toxin Weapons Con…

> The US plays "fairly" in international relations? Honestly amazed if anyone truly stands by that statement. If you consider how much power the U.S. has and how often it does not use that power to its fullest advantage, it's pretty remarkable how much it holds back.

This is actually a fair call. It could be far far worse. Still reasonable to complain about as a Western citizen barely affected if not benefiting from it.

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#163

Post by ShorsHammer » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

devoply wrote: post #103

ShorsHammer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US plays "fairly" in international relations? Honestly amazed if anyone truly stands by that statement. The irony of mentioning treaties too. That's some next level true believer stuff. Would love to have a chat about: * Chemical weapons convention * Mine ban treaty * Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court * Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty * Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty * Biological and Toxin Weapons Con…

I am a critic of the US but in this case it's not as if Russian hackers don't keep screwing with the US power grid.

Free pentests. Fix the fact that they can do it in the firstplace and secure your systems.

It can only be beneficial.

Option 1: Use the intrusions to plug holes and learn best practices to apply across the industry. Come out stronger from it.

Option 2: Escalate, fight back and ruin innocent peoples lives thousands of kilometres away.

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#164

Post by tozeur » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

realsensorfu wrote: post #36

pmoriarty wrote: post #8

"For the past year, energy companies in the United States and oil and gas operators across North America discovered their networks had been examined by the same Russian hackers who successfully dismantled the safety systems in 2017 at Petro Rabigh, a Saudi petrochemical plant and oil refinery." Why are these systems even connected to the internet? Decades ago, creating such connections might have been a forgivable ov…

Shameless plug: I work for a startup ( https://www.sensorfu.com/ ) that helps utilities and industrial companies to solve that exact problem of keeping their control | ICS networks closed and isolated from internet. Even larger utilities often have a rather small IT teams that are tasked with everything from keeping things running to change management, network design and architecture. And whether it is lack of time t…

Good luck!

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#165

Post by akhilcacharya » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

PixyMisa wrote: post #83

Redoubts wrote: post #67

""" Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place “implants” — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid. Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might counte…

"We hid this from the president because we were afraid he might issue a perfectly legal and constitutional order to stop doing it." Yes, way to bury the lede.

"We hid this from the President because he would blab to our enemies for some reason" is absolutely a buried lede.

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#166

Post by hammock » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 10:06 PM UTC

undersuit wrote: post #107

hammock wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries in Europe have given up some sovereignty to the EU. Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secreta...

Yes, the legal framework is there, but it is up to the members to enforce it. It's the classic: "What are you going to do, hit me?" response after hitting someone. Just be glad most countries maintain some semblance of civility.

Hence the benefit of nuclear weapons. Although even the UK caved.

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#167

Post by jdsully » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 10:58 PM UTC

ShorsHammer wrote: post #101

devoply wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tit-for-tat response... until some treaty is signed which forbids it and then there is follow through from Russia. US plays hard ball if the other side is not playing fairly. You can hardly blame them.

The US plays "fairly" in international relations? Honestly amazed if anyone truly stands by that statement. The irony of mentioning treaties too. That's some next level true believer stuff. Would love to have a chat about: * Chemical weapons convention * Mine ban treaty * Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court * Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty * Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty * Biological and Toxin Weapons Con…

Even the major driver behind the mine ban treaty Frank O'Dea notes that the only reason the US didn't sign the treaty is no exception was made for the Korean DMZ. He gives significant credit to the United States for making the ban possible in the first place.

If you have time I highly recommend reading his book "When All You Have is Hope" - his transformation from an alcoholic to running a large coffee change and then later charitable work is heartening.

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#168

Post by ShorsHammer » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 11:27 PM UTC

jdsully wrote: post #167

ShorsHammer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US plays "fairly" in international relations? Honestly amazed if anyone truly stands by that statement. The irony of mentioning treaties too. That's some next level true believer stuff. Would love to have a chat about: * Chemical weapons convention * Mine ban treaty * Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court * Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty * Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty * Biological and Toxin Weapons Con…

Even the major driver behind the mine ban treaty Frank O'Dea notes that the only reason the US didn't sign the treaty is no exception was made for the Korean DMZ. He gives significant credit to the United States for making the ban possible in the first place. If you have time I highly recommend reading his book "When All You Have is Hope" - his transformation from an alcoholic to running a large coffee change and the…

If you look into the international treaties worldwide you'll find the US has exceptions made for it all the time to the point of making the treaties basically not apply to them.

Why are mines in the Korean DMZ more important than mines anywhere else on earth? Because if that was all it was about then why are US violations of the (non-signed) treaty still carried out across the globe? Mines were used in Afghanistan.

Exceptionalism and nationalistic fervour that demands inequitable laws isn't something to proud of.

There's still thousands killed and maimed by US landmines each year in SE Asia and the sole country responsible has wiped it's hands clean of it. You don't have to look far in Cambodia to see old women missing limbs thanks to Uncle Sam.

The actual legal steps to ban landmine usage and production only occured in 2014 under Obama.

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#169

Post by jdsully » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 11:57 PM UTC

ShorsHammer wrote: post #168

jdsully wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the major driver behind the mine ban treaty Frank O'Dea notes that the only reason the US didn't sign the treaty is no exception was made for the Korean DMZ. He gives significant credit to the United States for making the ban possible in the first place. If you have time I highly recommend reading his book "When All You Have is Hope" - his transformation from an alcoholic to running a large coffee change and the…

If you look into the international treaties worldwide you'll find the US has exceptions made for it all the time to the point of making the treaties basically not apply to them. Why are mines in the Korean DMZ more important than mines anywhere else on earth? Because if that was all it was about then why are US violations of the (non-signed) treaty still carried out across the globe? Mines were used in Afghanistan. E…

Mines along the DMZ are important because it prevents North Korea’s significant land army from crossing into the South. Without it Seoul is at significant risk.

Everyone points to the south’s modern weaponry and US backing as reasons why the DMZ mines are not needed. However the US had a significant tech advantage in the Korean War and almost lost completely (even before China entered the war). They were saved only by a daring beach landing in the Battle of Inchon.

Re: U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid

#170

Post by meowface » Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 2:47 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #85

alexandercrohde wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, I think "attack" is the only term. If you installed such software in US power plants it would almost certainly be described as "hacking," "a [cyber] attack", and likely if multiple targets "terrorism." Regardless of your opinion US/Russia, we should all hold that words need objective meanings that can't be "bent" for convenience.

Yeah this is pretty basic information security terminology. An "attack" is any attempted intrusion, successful or not, damaging or not. If the threat actor managed to breach your defenses and gain unauthorized access, that's called an attack. For some definitions: https://www.beyondtrust.com/blog/entry/difference-between-a-...

I think it's an attack in the network/technical sense but not the strategic sense. There's a bit of a conflation of terms here because there are at least two layers to any operation like this; the system intrusion itself, and using the access to achieve some kind of real world objective. Militarily or strategically, this would just be something like reconnaissance and preparation, I think (I know almost nothing about militaries though). So it's a system attack but not an "attack-attack".