Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stuxnet sibling theory surges after Iran says nuke facility shut down

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: Stuxnet sibling theory surges after Iran says nuke facility shut down

#11

Post by ForHackernews »

dijit wrote: post #8
LatteLazy wrote: post #6

This is interesting because it is much less subtle than stuxnet. One of the core features of stuxnet was that it broke centrifuges in a way that looked like (I think) manufacturering faults. That's why it went on so long and did so much damage: no one thought to look for it. It even faked logs I believe. This incident seems to be the opposite: a big one day event timed to make a splash and be quite obvious...

STUXNet, by all accounts, was also not very subtle though. They packed the thing with so many exploits that the virus was ubiquitous and very obviously nation-state produced.

Once you knew to look for / find the virus, it's obviously a very sophisticated piece of work.

The point is that it did its damage in a very under-the-radar way so it took a long time for anyone to even realize what they were dealing with.

Re: Stuxnet sibling theory surges after Iran says nuke facility shut down

#12

Post by laurent92 »

effie wrote: post #7
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> feeds the narrative of beeing the victim of the other states beeing the aggressors Does it? Someone blew up my secret nuclear enrichment facility isn’t exactly an endearing pitch.

It isn't secret at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natanz#Nuclear_facility

Stupid question, but why isn’t it bombed (or all trucks coming/leaving targeted)? As far as I know, it is “illegal” (whatever the international equivalent is) to attempt to acquire the nuclear bomb.

Which triggers the question, how did France obtain leniency from international powers when it gave the nuclear bomb to Israel in the 1960ies? Who decides what is legal? And who decides that Iran’s facility is not “slated for immediate removal”, given it seems USA is down to targeting cigarette smugglers with drones in other countries, and nuclear bomb seems a bit more threatening?

Re: Stuxnet sibling theory surges after Iran says nuke facility shut down

#14

Post by Jonnax »

laurent92 wrote: post #12
effie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't secret at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natanz#Nuclear_facility

Stupid question, but why isn’t it bombed (or all trucks coming/leaving targeted)? As far as I know, it is “illegal” (whatever the international equivalent is) to attempt to acquire the nuclear bomb. Which triggers the question, how did France obtain leniency from international powers when it gave the nuclear bomb to Israel in the 1960ies? Who decides what is legal? And who decides that Iran’s facility is not “slated…

What is illegal between nations? Countries may be part of the UN but they're not regions of a global government.

What you're describing are acts of war.

Re: Stuxnet sibling theory surges after Iran says nuke facility shut down

#16

Post by michaelt »

totalZero wrote: post #3

Why does Iran announce these situations? Covering them up would seem more typical of a secretive nuclear program.

Most countries, if they could, would like to advance one narrative on the world stage and a separate one to their citizens.

Perhaps this isn't aimed at us westerners - and instead it's aimed at Iranians.

The message being "Yet more evidence that our country is under constant assault by the forces of evil who are threatened by our growing strength. They are the cause of any problems you see, support our homeland security and military"

There's also a message for possible allies in the region: "As you can see, Western countries don't respect our sovereignty, any respect they claim to have for yours is an illusion, show solidarity with us fellow autocratic religious oil-producing countries"

Re: Stuxnet sibling theory surges after Iran says nuke facility shut down

#17

Post by tgv »

thendrill wrote: post #10

I can offer a different theory. You have a bunch of overworked underpaid and under qualified engineers in charge of deploying a nuclear facility with a ton of political pressure, and some crazy ass deadline. On day one, your systems compeletley fold... Because of reasons. Do you admit fault and face political regime consequences? Or... Do you blame it on a "system fault caused by hackers"

I think the evidence for your theory is just as strong as it is for a "stuxnet sibling". This is absolutely non-news.

Re: Stuxnet sibling theory surges after Iran says nuke facility shut down

#19

Post by will0 »

samjmck wrote: post #15
adam-a wrote: post #13

Interesting to see the contrast in coverage from a European outlet: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/11/israel-appears... "Israel appeared to confirm" vs "evidence is thin".

Aren't both websites British?

Yes

Re: Stuxnet sibling theory surges after Iran says nuke facility shut down

#20

Post by raducu »

laurent92 wrote: post #12
effie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't secret at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natanz#Nuclear_facility

Stupid question, but why isn’t it bombed (or all trucks coming/leaving targeted)? As far as I know, it is “illegal” (whatever the international equivalent is) to attempt to acquire the nuclear bomb. Which triggers the question, how did France obtain leniency from international powers when it gave the nuclear bomb to Israel in the 1960ies? Who decides what is legal? And who decides that Iran’s facility is not “slated…

Why do you think it's not bombed?

If it was that easy, Israel would have done it.

Post reply on HN