NSA tried Stuxnet cyber-attack on North Korea five years ago but failed

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/29/us-stuxnet-cyber-attack-north-korea-failure

by shahryc • 11 years ago

73 28 11 years ago

shahryc3• 11 years ago

"Intelligience sources say a covert campaign to attack nuclear weapons programme was stymied by North Korea’s isolated communications system..." --- It seems like "process isolation" for an entire country.

simonblack• 11 years ago

Just like the Windtalkers ended up being more secure for communications than the German super-duper technological Enigma machine.

madez• 11 years ago

Security through obscurity is real.

billyhoffman• 11 years ago

With NK its not really encryption. Just a really big air gap between systems

strictnein• 11 years ago

"A spokeswoman for the NSA declined to comment. The spy agency has previously declined to comment on the Stuxnet attack against"

That may be the easiest job in the history of history.

shahryc3• 11 years ago

sure beats being White House Press Secretary

clockwerx• 11 years ago

Heh, quick, put out a press release about how we didn't succeed to allay fears

Zirro• 11 years ago

"...imposing further sanctions on North Korea, which he said was “not even close” to taking steps to end its nuclear programme."

North Korea - under the current leadership - will never end its nuclear programme. It is their most important leverage in discussions with other nations, and the main reason they get much more international attention and aid than other equally poor countries.

They may slow down development for a while, or claim to cease development at some point in return for aid, but a few years later it will return stronger than before. We've already seen this happen once.

Efforts to end the North Korean nuclear programme without significant changes to their situation are futile. The US should know this by now.

smcl• 11 years ago

"Efforts to end the North Korean nuclear programme without significant changes to their situation are futile. The US should know this by now."

I don't think the US government are so naive as to not know this by now. I think both US\NK have accepted that it's a situation that cannot be easily considered "resolved" so instead each side heats\thaws relations as appropriate to suit their own particular needs at any given time.

baseballmerpeak• 11 years ago

Exactly, it's just another card in the deck to play as needed.

trhway• 11 years ago

North Korea - under the current leadership - will never end its nuclear programme.

well, Iran wasn't going to too (and add to that that there was Israel against the deal). I wonder what are the chances that in the time left Obama would do NK too, after Iran and Cuba (each will prove to be at least a regional history changing events).

Obama seems to be dropping the blind following of the ancient dust covered principles which were inherited from different epoch and acts pragmatically with open mind, and this is exactly what NK situation needs to. NK is already a nuke nation and they obviously wouldn't give it up (giving the history of their region, and the current regional situation..., and among other they obviously aware about the fate of Iraq who failed to develop their own and Ukraine who gave theirs up voluntarily 20+ years ago - the world is a tough place). Bringing them back into civilization though would let them to enjoy its fruit and thus would increase their perceived cost of using nukes, it would make them into situation where they would have a lot to lose while less reasons to use, thus decreasing the probability and interest in using the nukes.

ikeboy• 11 years ago

Iran still hasn't agreed to halt its nuclear program.

drzaiusapelord• 11 years ago

well, Iran wasn't going to too

The proposal by the Obama administration does not stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. From a very, very optimistic perspective it may delay that by a few years. Iran will have nukes pointed at Tel Aviv sooner than later. Of course Israel is upset at the deal. Iran screams about starting a new Jewish Genocide daily. Israel has the moral right to defend itself and the Obama administration has throw it under the bus.

Diplomacy didn't stop Syria's nuclear program either. Israeli jet fighters did (Operation Orchard). When a nation has decided to get nuclear arms, only violence stops them.

Oh well, here come the downvotes from the anti-Israeli types.

belorn• 11 years ago

If a nation used a virus to cause a fast spinning centrifuge to violently collapse and spread radioactive material in the near vicinity, or if they sent a unmarked covert drone to blow it up with a precision bomb, is there a marked difference?

nightcracker• 11 years ago

One is a clear act of violence by a third party, the other might go under the radar as a software error.

jdiez17• 11 years ago

Besides, infecting the computers in a nuclear plant is not as easy as sending a technician a tweet with a link to the .exe or pulling a trigger thousands of miles away.

We still don't know how they infected the Iranian nuclear plant, so chances are there were some covert operations near the site.

arprocter• 11 years ago

stuxnet caused the centrifuge mechanisms to burn out prematurely, not explode

fit2rule• 11 years ago

I can't fathom why citizens of the USA don't understand that actions like this can be considered, by other nations, to be an act of war. Yet the US' people just let their government get away with it, like its no big thing .. and then cry about 'blowback' when it - inevitably - happens.

varjag• 11 years ago

Given that legally the USA and NK are still at war, I don't see it changing much.

mokus• 11 years ago

Given that legally the USA and NK are still at war

For those, like me, curious about the situation, this is apparently something that has occurred several times in history[1]. In most if not all cases it seems to be pointless hair-splitting, but interesting nonetheless.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_extended_by_diplo...

(edit: markup)

justwannasing• 11 years ago

I can't fathom why you think China, Russia, North Korea, and other countries aren't doing the same and similar things to the US.

angrybits• 11 years ago

Not trying to be snarky, but why on Earth would I mind that my government is trying to prevent a rival government from gaining nuclear capability? World politics are what they are, and they are unavoidable, so my preference is that we do anything necessary to stay in a position of leadership. Would you prefer different if you were us?

edit: clarified last question

wahsd• 11 years ago

It really highlights the true nature of the threat the NSA represents to the freedom and liberty of all humanity to communicate and share. Their wanton, extra-legal, militaristic sabotage is a real chilling effect on all of society and humanity.

It always strikes me that we are so shocked at something like the OPM hack, when we go around like psychopaths abusing and destroying and manipulating whole societies on a regular basis. Will it really take something like China or Russia or Brazil or anyone else infiltrating, e.g., our financial system and either erasing transactions or falsifying transactions before we realize that "oops, hold on, let's stop this silliness that we started now that we are being hit". Do we really need to have a brush with our own vulnerability and mortality to decide it's a bad idea?

I personally don't think that we have seen the worst of it yet. It took the massacre at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the creation of exponentially more weapons that it would take to vaporize our planet to realize that we maybe shouldn't be such psychos, will it take something like destroying the financial system to realize we should just stop being psychos ... That some lines simply should not be crossed?

NSA tried Stuxnet cyber-attack on North Korea five years ago but failed

Related Stories