This article is claiming they've been trying to get rid of a worm for months? Why wouldn't they just format the computers and return to a previously backed up state?
Secondly, if the government needed information on how to solve the problem and didn't want to be detected, wouldn't they just send one or two of their top people to research it and then tell everyone else? How does large traffic from a certain country imply that the government is trying to find out how to defeat the worm?
Stuxnet is harder to get rid of than that because it has a rootkit that targets Siemens PLCs. The Windows PC is simply the vector to get it there. You can reformat and reinstall your Windows PCs all you like, but your SCADA systems will still be infected.
I don't really understand industrial control systems, but it seems like restoring all the code that runs on all of your PLCs from backup would be challenging, especially if your tools to do so are also infected.
You would think they'd be able to get clean versions from Siemens, then zero-fill any writable memory, flash the bios with a clean version, and go from there. I get that their technical expertise isn't great, but it should be too hard to fix. At worst, they should be able to rip everything out, send it back to Siemens, and ask for a clean version in return. Not sure what international regulations might prevent Siemens from doing that, but it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable challenge.
I thought about that too, but I speculate that the clean versions from Siemens wouldn't come from the factory ready to run an Iranian nuke plant -- you'd think that code would all be developed by the engineers who run the plant. All of that code would have to be recompiled from source too, as Stuxnet attaches itself to the PLC binaries.
That's certainly possible, although I don't understand why they would take that approach. The PLCs themselves should be relatively standardized, and any specific software that was created in house should be in an offline backup somewhere. Clearly, they didn't follow best practices, but it shouldn't take a year to start from scratch, assuming you had the basics on file.
I believe <i>somebody</i> just blew up one or two of their "top people". The article seems to indicate the scientist who was killed was in charge of the Stuxnet recovery.
Also, I'd bet fixing the whole plant's industrial control systems isn't as simple as restoring from a backup. I imagine there can be a lot of complexities such as the backup systems being infected, having to write custom tools to detect and prevent future infections, etc.
Also, I'm curious, what are people's thoughts on the worm's authors? Is it generally accepted to be Israeli-made, or are there some doubts about that? I remembered reading something about a reference to Israeli in the code from some anti-virus folks, not sure if that is actually true though. And I don't personally think that the CIA / U.S. military is innovative or clever enough to pull this off, but obviously that's just my opinion. Are there any other candidates?
The CIA / U.S. military have been involved with electronic warfare for a long time. I would disagree and say they're at least as innovative and perfectly capable of carrying out something like this. If it was a US operation though, I would probably add the NSA to the mix as well, since they likely would have had involvement at some point in the process. In either scenario though, it would likely involve contractors of some sort, if only for the specialized Siemens knowledge that would be required.
Likely a joint project, offered in return for one of the Israeli settlement freezes of the last few years. The motorcycle bombings were clearly Mossad, but the technical expertise, specifically the specs needed on the Siemens products, would probably have come from the US.
I think the US is plenty capable of pulling this type of thing off. They've done something somewhat similar a long while back... well, allegedly anyways.
I've been thinking about this consequence of government ineptness for a while now. The problem is that politicians think (rightly) that they have gamed the feedback loop that is public opinion successfully. What they haven't recognized is that there is a much more serious and devastating long-term feedback loop, that will not just remove the politicians but thrash the whole country. The global brain drain that benefitted the US following WWII was not accidental or inherently one-way.
The only thing we're not seeing (or at least I'm not) is any country advertising themselves and sticking their neck out as a refuge. If there was, you could see the drain start swirling pretty quickly.
What they haven't recognized is that there is a much more serious and devastating long-term feedback loop, that will not just remove the politicians but thrash the whole country.
How do you expect that this will cause the politicians to be removed? My observation has been that, thanks to poor-to-nonexistent economics education, politicians are able to turn this backwards, getting people fired up for mercantalist, protectionist policies. Those intuitively sound good, although completely discredit by economists, and wind up worsening the problem -- all with the blessing of the people.
Respectfully, I don't think you've given the issue enough consideration. You're saying that if they didn't search the pilots, someone would fake as a pilot to get through security? Then what would he do? Stand awkwardly with the rest of the crew thinking up a story to explain why there are two pilots (or three, or whatever) on this particular flight? I would hope that a fake pilot would be fairly easily and quickly detected by the other pilots (who do know each other personally, after all).
I assume he would change clothes in a restroom stall after getting through security but before getting to the boarding area. In fact, that might be overkill... All he needs to do is put away his jacket and hat, maybe put on a sweater -- actions innocuous enough that they could be done in the open.
Exactly. At least in Pakistan, a huge part of this problem is the insane emphasis of teaching everything in English, even though the people do not really understand English.
Imagine going through 10-12 years of schooling in Spanish, where instead of making an effort to teach you to conversate in Spanish, you just memorize the words in the book with little emphasis on what they mean?
I've never had this happen to me if I recall. Do the people who have a problem with this not keep their hand in "typing position"? It seems really difficult to me, with my left hand in position (which can be assured with the F dot) to hit W with my pinky or Q with my ring finger.
I have an honest question to ask, since the number of comments hasn't exploded here, I hope some thoughtful people can see it and answer. Please don't attack me for anything I may be implicitly saying; this is honestly something I'm confused about regarding the culture in which this event took place, and from which I am an outsider.
A number of people have taken great pains to emphasize that the behavior of the lady involved was not justification for an unwanted advance and that men should all understand this. Now I understand 100% that if she clearly and explicitly rejected his kiss advance, it was obviously wrong to go further (all of this is theoretical/alleged but ignore that for a moment).
Let's consider just the kissing portion and nothing beyond that.
Now, isn't sitting on people's laps and flirting exactly inviting this kind of advance? I mean isn't that exactly the point of those behaviors? To excite the passion of people it's being done to and who are watching?
It's very strange for people to vehemently deny this. It's like if I was a biologist of another race observing human kind, what would I identify through observation as the beginning steps in the mating ritual? So why is an impression being given that that kind of behavior is "having fun" and has nothing to do with sex, and trying to attract the opposite sex?
Again, let me state- I don't drink, I don't go to parties like this, I've never been to a bar or a club or a girl's hotel room. So please don't assume I know the answer and I'm trying to imply the answer through these questions. I really just don't understand how you can hold this idealistic view of mankind that a member of one sex should enflame the passion of the opposite sex, through activities and clothing with deliberate, intentional sexual overtones and then expect people to overcome their natural, biological response to that kind of show.
In the absence of power imbalances (doctor/patient, teacher/student, police/suspect etc), I think in general it's acceptable to make the first part of a first move if you have reason to believe that it is welcome - it becomes crystal clear whether it is or not very quickly. But obviously, the instant that rejection occurs, anything other than a sincere apology for misunderstanding the signals is unacceptable. It's a bit embarrassing, but you get over it :)
As for this (theoretical/alleged/etc etc) story - it doesn't sound like the guy even had reason to believe that his first move was welcome. She had flirted with a couple of other guys, and sat on a few laps due to the lack of seating in the hotel room. As someone with a lot of female friends and who has been at a lot of drunken parties, I can say that this sort of thing is common, lots of fun, but NOT an invitation for any random guy within the group to make a move. There's a big difference between general flirty fun across a group and a girl specifically and exclusively flirting with a single guy. It can take a while and a few mistakes to learn to tell the difference. Especially if you have spent more time on your computer than with friends as a child/teen and you haven't yet realised that the way these things happen on TV aren't how they happen in real life (yes, I am speaking from experience ;D ).
Pro tip for my fellow geek guys: Don't hit on the geek girl. Focus on being awesome. If there's a chance, she'll hit on you. If not, you still get to be awesome.
> Let's consider just the kissing portion and nothing beyond that.
I did not get that she had a problem with the just kissing part: everyone might get the wrong impression in some situation, it is somewhat understandable (plus movies make spontaneous kisses appear romantic). Heck, maybe he even had a crush on her? Anyway, in a normal encounter, she says "no", embarrassment all around but no real harm done. The problem was that, apparently, he did not take "no" for an answer.
…
There are obviously biological differences between the sexes and it would be a disservice to pretend there are none when trying to establish codes of behaviour. In this particular case it is rather irrelevant, though.
People are not animals, acting upon instinct and physical inputs alone. Our laws, societal norms, and mores are all based on the fact that, while we are animals underneath, a critical part of what makes us human is that we don't have to act on every urge that comes to mind.
Is there an opportunity for people to get confused and read mixed signals? Absolutely. Did they in this case? I don't know. From the little I have read, it does not sound to me like it was a case of "she was totally leading me on, then was shocked when I followed."
Regardless, as a man in that situation, I would be extremely careful. It is far to easy to get into trouble with the law in situation that somebody is leading you on, then turns off. Personally, I don't want a felony assault on my record, regardless of whether I'm "right" or not.
There are people who enflame my passion to hit them with a clue-by-four, through activities and writing with decidedly incendiary overtones, and yet I'm perfectly fine without hitting them, too.
Is the idea that "non-conensual == not OK" that hard to grasp for males? I don't think so.
As someone who does go to parties, if some girl were sitting in laps and laying across people, etc., she should not be surprised if a guy makes a move.
Now, the guy should have known she was probably not specifically interested in him, since she was sitting in EVERYONE'S lap (this is analogous to other things a man or woman can do with everybody...)
And, as you mentioned, he had no right or logical reason to make the move down south. If someone did that at a party I was at to one of my female friends, he'd get socked in the face and thrown on the concrete.
I really just don't understand how you can hold this idealistic view of mankind that a member of one sex should enflame the passion of the opposite sex, through activities and clothing with deliberate, intentional sexual overtones and then expect people to overcome their natural, biological response to that kind of show.
All the other men she was hanging out with were able to do it. Speaking for myself only, maybe you are different: raping a woman has never crossed my mind, even when my "passions were enflamed". It's not something I have had to overcome.
Man, I wish those punks would do something like that in my neighborhood. 5 or 6 guys should get together with some nice, big sticks and go patrol the streets. Let some kid throw an egg at them and then go beat the crap out of him (meaning hit him once or twice in a non-vulnerable part of the body until he cries but not cause any actual physical harm). It will only take one kid, one year. Problem solved forever.
Nothing wrong with stating publicly that you're willing and able to defend yourself and your property. In fact there should be no need to state it, it should be assumed that decent folk will...
HN is really a joke now, I see. Haven't been around for a while. Sad.