Skynet has arrived.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
IIRC most of those orders have authentication codes for similar reasons. The software designer would have to obtain those first.

Are we talking about run of the mill orders or shooting nukes?

An enemy having the ability to give our subs orders to move to a specific point is a huge benefit. Even confusing them and making them surface (or close to) in order to get better comms is a huge advantage.

I can personally come up with hundreds of ways to seriously fuck with the .mil through computer code that does not involve the release of ANY weapons.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
Maybe not, but assuming you have clearance from what I've seen it wouldn't be hard to smuggle one in and discretely plug it in somewhere.

Well that is true, but that is the whole point of the clearance. It is supposed to weed out people that would have bad intentions. So the rules are effective at keeping someone from infecting the comuters on accident. We were also told that the computer monitored and reported all hardware connected to it. We even got e-mails gripping at us because some people moved around some space balls without permission, so they were connected to the wrong computers.
 
Last edited:

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Interesting. This has "CIA" and "NSA" written all over it. There's only a handful of organizations in the world that could build something like this, have the resources to know everything about all the control systems, and want to acquire the capability to damage control infrastructure. The US government has to be #1 on that list, closely followed by China, Russia and Israel.

I guess this just makes it more clear (as if it wasn't before) that people need to take security seriously when it comes to critical applications. Firewalls, disabling of all external ports, running (more) secure OS's etc etc etc.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Why are plant computers connected to the internet at all? They wouldn't be able to deliver this if the computers aren't online... Unless stupid employees watch pr0n on their flashdrives that are infected.


Why are they connected to the internet.... let's see....

1. Production monitoring: it's not just for when you're at work anymore - bosses on vacation, traveling around the world... etc...
2. Pushing updates to those computers.
3. Because IT wants everything networked so they can trouble shoot hardware and software problems from India (nope, not kidding... and we're a fortune 50 manufacturer)
4. Troubleshooting for engineers - it's a lot quicker to log in from your desk and find the issue than it is to walk to the machine with your laptop (assuming you have the right software), plug in (assuming you have the right cable), then start troubleshooting (assuming you have the password for that machine with you at the time).

There are a myriad of reasons why most floor systems are connected to the network in one way or another, even if indirectly. You might as well ask why a blu-ray player has to be connected.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
stuxnet is old news.
It has already been adapted for use in general malware so it is not just a small segment effected by it anymore.

On the subject of skynet, what concerns me more is the reprap project. It is 3d milling machines that make 3d milling machines. Machines that build other machines that build other machines :)
http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

RepRap is about making self-replicating machines, and making them freely available for the benefit of everyone. We are using 3D printing to do this, but if you have other technologies that can copy themselves and that can be made freely available to all, then this is the place for you too.
 
Last edited:

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Maybe I watch to much TV but aren't a lot of .mil communications completely digital, like commands sent to deployed subs? As in there aren't any humans with phones to their ears, the printer spits out a piece of paper with the orders on it or something like that?

Hell, think of the havoc if it fucked with air traffic control or the .govs digital money printer...


Even better they have their own network totally separate from the internet. Anything that is labeled top secret is not allowed to be connected to a network outside of the internal network. Internet access is not even allowed to be connected to the facility in some locations. They don't allow connection through firewalls or routers , it is physically isolated. Instructions to things like subs are done via dedicated satellites. An employee cannot infect the network or remove information either. The procedures are very intense. No electronic device is allowed through the door, not even a wristwatch. You may not bring anything with you except the clothes you wear. The workstations are only keyboard, mouse, monitor. There is no access to the physical computer case. No usb, dvd, or ports. If hardware fails like a hard drive, it is done with two techs doing the work a security guard watching while the whole process is recorded on video. Drives are shredded immediately after being removed, all those programs that talk of wiping data from disk is old tech, they shred them now.

That is why I laugh when the media reports that some senators emails were hacked and how it is a threat to national security. None of that is on the same network.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Sounds gimmicky. Almost PR like. Like Modelworks suggests there are fail safes upon fail safes to our systems. No one is going to launch a nuke with malware.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Terminator: In three years, Cyberdyne will become the largest supplier of military computer systems. All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they fly with a perfect operational record. The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes online on August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
Sarah: Skynet fights back.
Terminator: Yes. It launches its missiles against their targets in Russia.
John: Why attack Russia? Aren't they our friends now?
Terminator: Because Skynet knows that the Russian counterattack will eliminate its enemies over here.
Sarah: Jesus.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Sounds gimmicky. Almost PR like. Like Modelworks suggests there are fail safes upon fail safes to our systems. No one is going to launch a nuke with malware.

Except this virus targeted control systems for nuclear power plants, not missile launch controls.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I guess now we know why the Israelis did not hit Bushehr and other sites in Iran with a military strike yet.

It must have been quite a ribbon cutting ceremony there when the Iranians and the Russians pushed the On button and something very interesting happened instead.

Though it seems as though it is a single system/single condition targeting agent, if Stuxnet can be remotely reprogrammed or intelligently adapt itself to whatever specific host it resides on, the adapted targeting could take down broad swaths of infrastructure without a shot fired.

As the bulk of infected systems are in Iran, we could see Peace in our time!
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
This is an act of war. I am very truthfully NOT exaggerating when I say that someone needs to die for creating the program.

Yes? Just like a US B-2 pilot that's on a readiness mission, carrying live nukes, should die for having a potential to hurt a large amount of people?

If the article is correct, this is military stuff. It seems like that malware knows exactly what it's looking for. Sounds much more responsible than any random virii out there. Also, I don't know which side you're on, but as it seems to target Iran, I don't think it's all that bad.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Yes? Just like a US B-2 pilot that's on a readiness mission, carrying live nukes, should die for having a potential to hurt a large amount of people?

If the article is correct, this is military stuff. It seems like that malware knows exactly what it's looking for. Sounds much more responsible than any random virii out there. Also, I don't know which side you're on, but as it seems to target Iran, I don't think it's all that bad.

Rewind. Your analogy is specious. If you had said the US B-2 pilot LAUNCHED his nuke, we might be talking the same level of maliciousness.

Do you deny that launching a weapon designed to destroy nuclear power plants in a given country is an act of war?

Do you understand there is no functional difference between bombing the shit out of that plant, and blowing it up with a computer program?

If this was us, it's despicable. The impact to the area, the ecosystem, and the innocents on the ground is unthinkable.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Rewind. Your analogy is specious. If you had said the US B-2 pilot LAUNCHED his nuke, we might be talking the same level of maliciousness.

Well, it just so happens that you talked about potential damage to people. Of course that in the case of an attack there would be collateral damage. Do you suggest to try and execute the Israeli pilots who bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981, thus denying Saddam nuclear capabilities?

Do you deny that launching a weapon designed to destroy nuclear power plants in a given country is an act of war?

Many things can be "an act of war". Declaring sanctions on Iran is "an act of war". Heck, burning Korans down in Florida constitutes "an act of war" to many, and that's on US soil!

Do you understand there is no functional difference between bombing the shit out of that plant, and blowing it up with a computer program?

Of course there is none. Nothing blew up, though. I guess that either the virii failed to do its job or that its perpetrators looked for something more subtle than an explosion.

If this was us, it's despicable. The impact to the area, the ecosystem, and the innocents on the ground is unthinkable.

If this was 'us', then 'we' should be proud of the level of technical excellence and commitment taken by the armed forces to deny a radical Muslim country of weapons of mass destruction.

Sir, are you a Muslim?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
If this was 'us', then 'we' should be proud of the level of technical excellence and commitment taken by the armed forces to deny a radical Muslim country of weapons of mass destruction.

Sir, are you a Muslim?

We are talking about a Yahoo news piece in which some asshole is currently reverse engineering it...

If WE did this we fucked up bigtime and gave the ENEMIES of the United States that same "technical excellence" in new ultra-sophisticated .mil malware. If some asshole is reporting about his reverse engineering on Yahoo news then other countries are much much further along, probably to the point at being able to use our (if it is ours) weapon against us.

The stealth bomber was a show of "technical excellence" but we didn't give one to every country in the world to reverse engineer it the first time we used it. If this is our weapon we fucked up bad in the deployment of it. I would wager that we are much more at risk from such a weapon.
 

postmortemIA

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2006
7,721
40
91
if it is so smart, then its makers would figure this would happen: security experts will soon figure out who made this... as if they didn't care to be discovered!
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
We are talking about a Yahoo news piece in which some asshole is currently reverse engineering it...

If WE did this we fucked up bigtime and gave the ENEMIES of the United States that same "technical excellence" in new ultra-sophisticated .mil malware. If some asshole is reporting about his reverse engineering on Yahoo news then other countries are much much further along, probably to the point at being able to use our (if it is ours) weapon against us.

The stealth bomber was a show of "technical excellence" but we didn't give one to every country in the world to reverse engineer it the first time we used it. If this is our weapon we fucked up bad in the deployment of it. I would wager that we are much more at risk from such a weapon.

I agree with you, but that was beside the point. I was talking about the notion of attacking Iran's nuclear program, not this particular malware. We even don't know what it exactly does.