Author Topic: WE'RE STUFFED!!!  (Read 30746 times)

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18284
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1740 on: April 29, 2012, 08:33:35 PM »
Thanks for rubbing it in E.

I don't know how to respond to this situation any more. There has arisen a new response by the extreme Right, anti-Global-Warming push, specifically for those on the public front-line - ie. those who have to 'appear' to be reasonable while still denouncing carbon emission policies.

This has, I'm certain, been devised by well-funded think tanks, to provide those who have to 'acknowledge' Global Warming (those who still deny that don't require this device) with an angle which serves to devalue the emotional high ground of the Climate Change movement. This is for those who publicly can no longer dispute the 'facts' that the Earth is warming, and that perhaps ... just perhaps mind you ... humanity (read commerce) is responsible.

The line is: Climate Change activists do themselves no good by adopting alarmist and extreme apocalyptical language.
[Note those specific words]

The next line is a good one, but a little more difficult:

Given the 'risk' involved for humanity in changing the Earth's climate, why not initiate measures to try to rectify. Even if anthropomorphic Climate Change proves to be 'wrong', surely the incredible risk - that we will make the Earth inhabitable - is worth the pain of changing our economic structures.

The answer:

Given the incredible economic costs involved in changing entire nations' commercial structure, to adopt carbon emission restraint, when it could be a complete red herring, surely we should wait until we have certainty about humanity's role in this whole affair.

There are other ripostes, but they are more preaching to the converted lines. These are the new 'interface' arguments to undermine any fossil fuel attacks.

The primary thing to keep foremost in mind is the 'mind' of the Right. They see politics as an ultimate game in itself. They are perfectly happy to adopt any argument which will further their cause in winning political power. Therefore they see the adoption of Climate Change as a similar 'tool' in the political weaponry of the Left, to win power. They thus attack environmental issues, not on the basis of their own veracity, but on the basis of their being a weapon in the hands of the Left to gain power.

The Left are severely handicapped by actually believing in their policies. The Right see a world of 'political war', in which every side will use whatever supports their fight. Thus they assume the left is using Climate Change as a political weapon, which the Right 'must' disable in any way possible. In such a game, the Left will always lose, until the 'inevitable march of circumstances'.

The second failure of the 'Left' personality, is that they see a world of constantly changing possibilities - as new data becomes available, they will adjust their views. The Right personality adopts the position of 'grab and freeze'. Once an answer is found, supporting their basic view, they freeze on that view, and nothing can shift it - it is not up for modification or change on the basis of new data.

The consequence is that the Right personality perceives the Left personality to be the same - that they have become 'stuck' in their green views no matter what arguments are put against that (read the conspiracy arguments against Climate Change in this case).

The Sociologists are having a good time in all this.

Firstly they identify the personality types involved:
Climate Sceptics believe in the freedom of the individual and that the government is too intrusive into personal affairs.
Climate Change believers believe in egalitarian values, and see the government as the regulator of those values.

Secondly, they identify the easy ride Sceptics get in the public debate.

They have the advantage of appealing to 'balance': the scientific world sees Climate Change denial as a highly marginal view, but journalists only see two sides to the debate. Journalists are not concerned, not informed sufficiently, to realise they are offering equal footing to a highly marginal view point.

Then Sceptics have the advantage of their arguments being wonderfully simplistic, while the science is embedded in complexities, peer debate, and probabilities of truth.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 08:57:18 PM by Michael »

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1741 on: April 29, 2012, 10:03:19 PM »
Once an answer is found, supporting their basic view, they freeze on that view, and nothing can shift it

They freeze [in fear], their world becomes "complete"...again.
On the fringes, we watch and understand.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 10:38:50 PM by erik »

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1742 on: April 30, 2012, 11:38:28 PM »
Quote
Like baboons, our elected leaders are literally addicted to power

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9228257/Like-baboons-our-elected-leaders-are-literally-addicted-to-power.html

Democracy, the separation of judicial powers and the free press all evolved for essentially one purpose – to reduce the chance of leaders becoming power addicts. Power changes the brain triggering increased testosterone in both men and women. Testosterone and one of its by-products called 3-androstanediol, are addictive, largely because they increase dopamine in a part of the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens. Cocaine has its effects through this system also, and by hijacking our brain’s reward system, it can give short-term extreme pleasure but leads to long-term addiction, with all that that entails.

Unfettered power has almost identical effects, but in the light of yesterday’s Leveson Inquiry interchanges in London, there seems to be less chance of British government ministers becoming addicted to power. Why? Because, as it appears from the emails released by James Murdoch yesterday, they appeared to be submissive to the all-powerful Murdoch empire, hugely dependent on the support of this organization for their jobs and status, who could swing hundreds of thousands of votes for or against them.

Submissiveness and dominance have their effects on the same reward circuits of the brain as power and cocaine. Baboons low down in the dominance hierarchy have lower levels of dopamine in key brain areas, but if they get ‘promoted’ to a higher position, then dopamine rises accordingly. This makes them more aggressive and sexually active, and in humans similar changes happen when people are given power. What’s more, power also makes people smarter, because dopamine improves the functioning of the brain’s frontal lobes. Conversely, demotion in a hierarchy decreases dopamine levels, increases stress and reduces cognitive function.

But too much power - and hence too much dopamine - can disrupt normal cognition and emotion, leading to gross errors of judgment and imperviousness to risk, not to mention huge egocentricity and lack of empathy for others. The Murdoch empire and its acolytes seem to have got carried away by the power they have wielded over the British political system and the unfettered power they have had - unconstrained by any democratic constraints - has led to the quite extraordinary behaviour and arrogance that has been corporately demonstrated.

We should all be grateful that two of the three power-constraining elements of democracy - the legal system and a free press - have managed to at last reign in some of the power of the Murdoch empire. But it was a close call for both, given the threat to financial viability of the newspaper industry and to the integrity of the police system through the close links between the Murdoch empire and Scotland Yard.

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18284
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1743 on: May 05, 2012, 07:43:57 PM »
Alas, Democracy is now a questionable arrangement.

Aside from it's obvious failures in the Global Financial Crises (1 and 2), and in the Climate Change response - both of which are extremely serious failures - it is also facing failure due to the unbelievable connivances of those who seek power. One only has to glance at the USA to see how democracy has been hijacked. Naturally the masses wake up eventually, but unfortunately these days, 'eventually' is too late.

I have always had my doubt about democracy. In truth, democracy or no democracy, we are at the mercy of the quality of those at the helm. We think the ship matters, but it always comes down to the leader.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1744 on: May 06, 2012, 01:43:48 AM »
but it always comes down to the leader.

A man/woman with a vision and courage...where to find these in the age of intellectual and spiritual lameness...? Just look how film makers are out of ideas, and all they do is 3D comic book movies and remakes...If the men who flew to the Moon, had mentality of our days, they would have never taken off. Never-ever.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1745 on: May 18, 2012, 01:14:41 AM »
Quote
Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists find

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/17/australasia-hottest-60-years-study


Red dust blown in from Australia's parched interior blankets Sydney in 2009. Australia and its region are experiencing the hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists have determined. Photograph: Greg Wood/AFP/Getty


The last 60 years have been the hottest in Australasia for a millennium and cannot be explained by natural causes, according to a new report by scientists that supports the case for a reduction in manmade carbon emissions.
 
In the first major study of its kind in the region, scientists at the University of Melbourne used natural data from 27 climate indicators, including tree rings, corals and ice cores to map temperature trends over the past 1,000 years.
 
"Our study revealed that recent warming in a 1,000-year context is highly unusual and cannot be explained by natural factors alone, suggesting a strong influence of human-caused climate change in the Australasian region," said the study's lead researcher, Dr Joelle Gergis.
 
The climate reconstruction was done in 3,000 different ways and concluded with 95% accuracy that no other period in the past 1,000 years match or exceeded post-1950 warming in Australia.
 
The study, published in the Journal of Climate, will be part of Australia's contribution to the fifth Intergovernmetal Panel on Climate Change report, due in 2014.
 
As part of the study, climate modellers used the natural data to analyse the impact of both natural events, like volcanic eruptions in the pre-industrial era, and the impact of human-induced climate change such as greenhouse gasses emissions on temperatures in the last millennium.
 
Dr Steven Phipps, from the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, who carried out the modeling, said the study demonstrated strong human influence on the climate in the region.
 
"The models showed that prior to 1850 there were not any long-term trends and temperature variations were likely to be caused by natural climate variability which is a random process," he said.
 
"But [the modeling showed] 20th-century warming significantly exceeds the amplitude of natural climate variability and demonstrates that the recent warming experience in Australia is unprecedented within the context of the last millennium."
 
Annual average daily maximum temperatures in Australia have increased by 0.75C since 1910. Since the 1950s each decade has been warmer than the one before it.
 
Australia's peak scientific body, the CSIRO, has said temperatues will rise by between 1C and 5C by 2070 when compared with recent decades. It predicts the number of droughts in southern Australia will increase in the future and that there will be an increase in intense rainfall in many areas.

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18284
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1746 on: May 21, 2012, 02:38:26 AM »
Is this the death-knell of Europe?

Will Greece be better or worse off by defaulting? I've heard expert arguments on both sides.

What is the real play? Curiously, I heard an expert woman economist, explaining that the $12billion given to Greece went straight to a group of lenders (gamblers she called them) who refused to join in with the earlier Greek rescue package, and take a cut in their returns. So they had to be paid before anyone else, like the people of Greece.

So do we now have a battle between those who emphasise the code-word 'growth', and the investors across the globe? With Obama giving some investor-rattling nods to the Growth amp? France has told it's new helmsman to tell everyone to stick their austerity up their bum. Who will win, with the politicians dancing between two angry wolves?

Doesn't appear to be anything hindering its climax, so I expect we won't need to wait long for the next episode.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 02:48:17 AM by Michael »

Jahn

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1747 on: May 21, 2012, 03:59:45 AM »
Is this the death-knell of Europe?

Will Greece be better or worse off by defaulting? I've heard expert arguments on both sides.

What is the real play? Curiously, I heard an expert woman economist, explaining that the $12billion given to Greece went straight to a group of lenders (gamblers she called them) who refused to join in with the earlier Greek rescue package, and take a cut in their returns. So they had to be paid before anyone else, like the people of Greece.

So do we now have a battle between those who emphasise the code-word 'growth', and the investors across the globe? With Obama giving some investor-rattling nods to the Growth amp? France has told it's new helmsman to tell everyone to stick their austerity up their bum. Who will win, with the politicians dancing between two angry wolves?

Doesn't appear to be anything hindering its climax, so I expect we won't need to wait long for the next episode.

The low odds is spent on that Greece will leave the monetary union. When? My guess is before the end of the year (after all this is 2012  ;D  ).

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1748 on: May 21, 2012, 05:54:18 PM »
Is this the death-knell of Europe?

Two world wars did not finish Europe, this fiscal crisis will not either. Greece has been known for years to practice black arts instead of book keeping. Now they pay a price and accuse Germans for not doing their duty.

The present situation and the Great Depression... The equilibrium of the latter was at the point where nothing happened any more and the market did not regulate a thing. It took a forceful government to push the economy out of that spot and achieve the growth.

As of today, the trade flows across the Pacific exceed by about 50% those across the Atlantic. The US is in a very different situation than the EU.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1749 on: June 11, 2012, 03:47:32 AM »
Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?_r=1&ref=stuxnet
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?_r=1&ref=stuxnet

WASHINGTON — From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.

At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm’s “escape,” Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised.

“Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room.

Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium.

This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day.

These officials gave differing assessments of how successful the sabotage program was in slowing Iran’s progress toward developing the ability to build nuclear weapons. Internal Obama administration estimates say the effort was set back by 18 months to two years, but some experts inside and outside the government are more skeptical, noting that Iran’s enrichment levels have steadily recovered, giving the country enough fuel today for five or more weapons, with additional enrichment.

Whether Iran is still trying to design and build a weapon is in dispute. The most recent United States intelligence estimate concludes that Iran suspended major parts of its weaponization effort after 2003, though there is evidence that some remnants of it continue.

Iran initially denied that its enrichment facilities had been hit by Stuxnet, then said it had found the worm and contained it. Last year, the nation announced that it had begun its own military cyberunit, and Brig. Gen. Gholamreza Jalali, the head of Iran’s Passive Defense Organization, said that the Iranian military was prepared “to fight our enemies” in “cyberspace and Internet warfare.” But there has been scant evidence that it has begun to strike back.

The United States government only recently acknowledged developing cyberweapons, and it has never admitted using them. There have been reports of one-time attacks against personal computers used by members of Al Qaeda, and of contemplated attacks against the computers that run air defense systems, including during the NATO-led air attack on Libya last year. But Olympic Games was of an entirely different type and sophistication.

It appears to be the first time the United States has repeatedly used cyberweapons to cripple another country’s infrastructure, achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives. The code itself is 50 times as big as the typical computer worm, Carey Nachenberg, a vice president of Symantec, one of the many groups that have dissected the code, said at a symposium at Stanford University in April. Those forensic investigations into the inner workings of the code, while picking apart how it worked, came to no conclusions about who was responsible.

A similar process is now under way to figure out the origins of another cyberweapon called Flame that was recently discovered to have attacked the computers of Iranian officials, sweeping up information from those machines. But the computer code appears to be at least five years old, and American officials say that it was not part of Olympic Games. They have declined to say whether the United States was responsible for the Flame attack.

Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons — even under the most careful and limited circumstances — could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks.

“We discussed the irony, more than once,” one of his aides said. Another said that the administration was resistant to developing a “grand theory for a weapon whose possibilities they were still discovering.” Yet Mr. Obama concluded that when it came to stopping Iran, the United States had no other choice.

If Olympic Games failed, he told aides, there would be no time for sanctions and diplomacy with Iran to work. Israel could carry out a conventional military attack, prompting a conflict that could spread throughout the region.

A Bush Initiative

 The impetus for Olympic Games dates from 2006, when President George W. Bush saw few good options in dealing with Iran. At the time, America’s European allies were divided about the cost that imposing sanctions on Iran would have on their own economies. Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation’s nuclear ambitions. The Iranians seemed to sense his vulnerability, and, frustrated by negotiations, they resumed enriching uranium at an underground site at Natanz, one whose existence had been exposed just three years before.

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, took reporters on a tour of the plant and described grand ambitions to install upward of 50,000 centrifuges. For a country with only one nuclear power reactor — whose fuel comes from Russia — to say that it needed fuel for its civilian nuclear program seemed dubious to Bush administration officials. They feared that the fuel could be used in another way besides providing power: to create a stockpile that could later be enriched to bomb-grade material if the Iranians made a political decision to do so.

Hawks in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney urged Mr. Bush to consider a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities before they could produce fuel suitable for a weapon. Several times, the administration reviewed military options and concluded that they would only further inflame a region already at war, and would have uncertain results.

For years the C.I.A. had introduced faulty parts and designs into Iran’s systems — even tinkering with imported power supplies so that they would blow up — but the sabotage had had relatively little effect. General James E. Cartwright, who had established a small cyberoperation inside the United States Strategic Command, which is responsible for many of America’s nuclear forces, joined intelligence officials in presenting a radical new idea to Mr. Bush and his national security team. It involved a far more sophisticated cyberweapon than the United States had designed before.

The goal was to gain access to the Natanz plant’s industrial computer controls. That required leaping the electronic moat that cut the Natanz plant off from the Internet — called the air gap, because it physically separates the facility from the outside world. The computer code would invade the specialized computers that command the centrifuges.

The first stage in the effort was to develop a bit of computer code called a beacon that could be inserted into the computers, which were made by the German company Siemens and an Iranian manufacturer, to map their operations. The idea was to draw the equivalent of an electrical blueprint of the Natanz plant, to understand how the computers control the giant silvery centrifuges that spin at tremendous speeds. The connections were complex, and unless every circuit was understood, efforts to seize control of the centrifuges could fail.

Eventually the beacon would have to “phone home” — literally send a message back to the headquarters of the National Security Agency that would describe the structure and daily rhythms of the enrichment plant. Expectations for the plan were low; one participant said the goal was simply to “throw a little sand in the gears” and buy some time. Mr. Bush was skeptical, but lacking other options, he authorized the effort.

Breakthrough, Aided by Israel

 It took months for the beacons to do their work and report home, complete with maps of the electronic directories of the controllers and what amounted to blueprints of how they were connected to the centrifuges deep underground.

Then the N.S.A. and a secret Israeli unit respected by American intelligence officials for its cyberskills set to work developing the enormously complex computer worm that would become the attacker from within.

The unusually tight collaboration with Israel was driven by two imperatives. Israel’s Unit 8200, a part of its military, had technical expertise that rivaled the N.S.A.’s, and the Israelis had deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyberattack a success. But American officials had another interest, to dissuade the Israelis from carrying out their own pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. To do that, the Israelis would have to be convinced that the new line of attack was working. The only way to convince them, several officials said in interviews, was to have them deeply involved in every aspect of the program.

Soon the two countries had developed a complex worm that the Americans called “the bug.” But the bug needed to be tested. So, under enormous secrecy, the United States began building replicas of Iran’s P-1 centrifuges, an aging, unreliable design that Iran purchased from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear chief who had begun selling fuel-making technology on the black market. Fortunately for the United States, it already owned some P-1s, thanks to the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

When Colonel Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program in 2003, he turned over the centrifuges he had bought from the Pakistani nuclear ring, and they were placed in storage at a weapons laboratory in Tennessee. The military and intelligence officials overseeing Olympic Games borrowed some for what they termed “destructive testing,” essentially building a virtual replica of Natanz, but spreading the test over several of the Energy Department’s national laboratories to keep even the most trusted nuclear workers from figuring out what was afoot.

Those first small-scale tests were surprisingly successful: the bug invaded the computers, lurking for days or weeks, before sending instructions to speed them up or slow them down so suddenly that their delicate parts, spinning at supersonic speeds, self-destructed. After several false starts, it worked. One day, toward the end of Mr. Bush’s term, the rubble of a centrifuge was spread out on the conference table in the Situation Room, proof of the potential power of a cyberweapon. The worm was declared ready to test against the real target: Iran’s underground enrichment plant.

“Previous cyberattacks had effects limited to other computers,” Michael V. Hayden, the former chief of the C.I.A., said, declining to describe what he knew of these attacks when he was in office. “This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction,” rather than just slow another computer, or hack into it to steal data.

“Somebody crossed the Rubicon,” he said.

Getting the worm into Natanz, however, was no easy trick. The United States and Israel would have to rely on engineers, maintenance workers and others — both spies and unwitting accomplices — with physical access to the plant. “That was our holy grail,” one of the architects of the plan said. “It turns out there is always an idiot around who doesn’t think much about the thumb drive in their hand.”

In fact, thumb drives turned out to be critical in spreading the first variants of the computer worm; later, more sophisticated methods were developed to deliver the malicious code.

The first attacks were small, and when the centrifuges began spinning out of control in 2008, the Iranians were mystified about the cause, according to intercepts that the United States later picked up. “The thinking was that the Iranians would blame bad parts, or bad engineering, or just incompetence,” one of the architects of the early attack said.

The Iranians were confused partly because no two attacks were exactly alike. Moreover, the code would lurk inside the plant for weeks, recording normal operations; when it attacked, it sent signals to the Natanz control room indicating that everything downstairs was operating normally. “This may have been the most brilliant part of the code,” one American official said.

Later, word circulated through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, that the Iranians had grown so distrustful of their own instruments that they had assigned people to sit in the plant and radio back what they saw.

“The intent was that the failures should make them feel they were stupid, which is what happened,” the participant in the attacks said. When a few centrifuges failed, the Iranians would close down whole “stands” that linked 164 machines, looking for signs of sabotage in all of them. “They overreacted,” one official said. “We soon discovered they fired people.”

Imagery recovered by nuclear inspectors from cameras at Natanz — which the nuclear agency uses to keep track of what happens between visits — showed the results. There was some evidence of wreckage, but it was clear that the Iranians had also carted away centrifuges that had previously appeared to be working well.

But by the time Mr. Bush left office, no wholesale destruction had been accomplished. Meeting with Mr. Obama in the White House days before his inauguration, Mr. Bush urged him to preserve two classified programs, Olympic Games and the drone program in Pakistan. Mr. Obama took Mr. Bush’s advice.

The Stuxnet Surprise

 Mr. Obama came to office with an interest in cyberissues, but he had discussed them during the campaign mostly in terms of threats to personal privacy and the risks to infrastructure like the electrical grid and the air traffic control system. He commissioned a major study on how to improve America’s defenses and announced it with great fanfare in the East Room.

What he did not say then was that he was also learning the arts of cyberwar. The architects of Olympic Games would meet him in the Situation Room, often with what they called the “horse blanket,” a giant foldout schematic diagram of Iran’s nuclear production facilities. Mr. Obama authorized the attacks to continue, and every few weeks — certainly after a major attack — he would get updates and authorize the next step. Sometimes it was a strike riskier and bolder than what had been tried previously.

“From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision,” a senior administration official said. “And it’s safe to say that whatever other activity might have been under way was no exception to that rule.”

But the good luck did not last. In the summer of 2010, shortly after a new variant of the worm had been sent into Natanz, it became clear that the worm, which was never supposed to leave the Natanz machines, had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage. It fell to Mr. Panetta and two other crucial players in Olympic Games — General Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A. — to break the news to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden.

An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users.

“We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.”

Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.”

In fact, both the Israelis and the Americans had been aiming for a particular part of the centrifuge plant, a critical area whose loss, they had concluded, would set the Iranians back considerably. It is unclear who introduced the programming error.

The question facing Mr. Obama was whether the rest of Olympic Games was in jeopardy, now that a variant of the bug was replicating itself “in the wild,” where computer security experts can dissect it and figure out its purpose.

“I don’t think we have enough information,” Mr. Obama told the group that day, according to the officials. But in the meantime, he ordered that the cyberattacks continue. They were his best hope of disrupting the Iranian nuclear program unless economic sanctions began to bite harder and reduced Iran’s oil revenues.

Within a week, another version of the bug brought down just under 1,000 centrifuges. Olympic Games was still on.

A Weapon’s Uncertain Future

 American cyberattacks are not limited to Iran, but the focus of attention, as one administration official put it, “has been overwhelmingly on one country.” There is no reason to believe that will remain the case for long. Some officials question why the same techniques have not been used more aggressively against North Korea. Others see chances to disrupt Chinese military plans, forces in Syria on the way to suppress the uprising there, and Qaeda operations around the world. “We’ve considered a lot more attacks than we have gone ahead with,” one former intelligence official said.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly told his aides that there are risks to using — and particularly to overusing — the weapon. In fact, no country’s infrastructure is more dependent on computer systems, and thus more vulnerable to attack, than that of the United States. It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1750 on: June 11, 2012, 03:52:18 AM »
Isn't it amazing? These guys are developing very sophisticated cyberweapons, deploying them to the cyberspace, and anyone can pick one up, modify it and re-deploy?

This arms race will be faster than anybody could imagine...and possibly more destructive as well.

It brings to my mind biological weapons - they turned out horribly destructive/effective, but as destructive to their user as to the target population.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 03:55:22 AM by erik »

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18284
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1751 on: June 11, 2012, 03:09:48 PM »
Alas, war just won't go away. No matter what we would wish, there's always someone out there wanting to kill. It's in the blueprint. Thus, we have to deploy all these unpleasant things, like armies and weapons.

There have been civilisations who didn't go to war, but frankly, they were exceptions which proved the rule.

I am dealing with a man in my work situation, who for god knows what reason, is intent of destroying our business. Thankfully he is not taken seriously by our main clients, but he is certainly determined. While most people in the world are keen to get on and be friendly to those around them, there are always some who seek the destruction of others in one form or another. What do you do with such people?

In the Iranian case, it appears preferable to use a targeted computer virus, than invade the country. And does it appear preferable to bomb certain people from drones, when there exists no legal counter-balance. Where do we draw the line?

Personally I think the question needs constant asking, but I'm not dewy-eyed enough to believe we can survive without having to act against those who seek our destruction. I always prefer a sophisticated response mechanism, yet in the end, sometimes one just has to lower the boom.

So now they have released a virus which may mutate and return to bite the hand that raised it. Isn't that always the way? Action and reaction. Certainly gives some people something to do with their time, and a little remuneration.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 03:16:07 PM by Michael »

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1752 on: June 11, 2012, 04:55:21 PM »
Isn't that always the way? Action and reaction. Certainly gives some people something to do with their time, and a little remuneration.

Very true, but the novelty of the present situation lies in time-compression. Earlier, it took 10-20 years to build a new war plane, missile or design a new ship. How long will it take to design a new malware or simply modify the existing one? I can see a tremendous acceleration of the action-reaction cycle, whereas the governments could be reduced to a secondary role in this outbreak of primordial cyber chaos.

Not so long ago, a 12-year old chap seized control of computers overseeing this wonder:

It was done out of pure curiosity - to see whether he could pull it off. If he desired so, he could have unleashed the waters on everyone downstream. Now some governments intend to produce and disseminate specific tools for that.

It is certainly an arguable point, but we might be crossing a threshold where a seriously mad individual could do unimaginable damage to a society he lives in. Individuals have never been so empowered during previous periods of history. Thus, the survival of societies depends on their internal consensus-building more than ever, as they cannot be protected from their own members (except if they opt for a KGB-controlled world).

We have always lived in a violent world where we have had to deal with rabid dogs (and they have to be put away). Yet, these cyber developments/warriors might herald the destruction of highly organised societies as we know them. At least the potential is clearly there.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 04:58:14 PM by erik »

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1753 on: June 13, 2012, 01:28:24 PM »
Flame cyberweapon is tied to Stuxnet program

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/06/flame-stuxnet-share-code.html

Paul Marks, senior technology correspondent

The game appears to be up for the US and Israeli intelligence agencies who created the potent Stuxnet worm and Duqu trojan: analysis by software engineers at Kaspersky Lab in Moscow shows they also created Flame, the powerful espionage software that has mainly been infecting computers in Iran.

Kaspersky Lab, which was commissioned by the UN to investigate the cause of massive document losses in a raft of Middle Eastern computer networks, identified Flame last week. In a bulletin issued today, Kaspersky says that a module from Stuxnet, known as "Resource 207" is actually a Flame plugin that allows the malicious code to spread via USB devices. "The code of the USB drive infection mechanism is identical in Flame and Stuxnet," says Kaspersky.

Coming soon after the New York Times detailed classified White House meetings that confirmed the US is behind Stuxnet, this is a further embarrassment for the Obama administration, which is now seen to be preaching cybersecurity defence at home while deploying a battery of offensive cyber threats abroad - and ones that undermine the software integrity of America's software champion, Microsoft, to do so.

Flame works by using cryptological skulduggery to scupper Microsoft's update system. And Stuxnet used vulnerabilities in Microsoft operating systems that, ordinarily, would be reported to Microsoft, repaired and sent out to millions of users as an update patch. Worse, perhaps, a coding error (the US reportedly blames Israel and vice versa) allowed Stuxnet to escape into the wild and reveal its existence - which a secret cyberweapon should of course not do.

It means the taxpayer-funded US National Security Agency is working at odds with the Department of Homeland Security, which is attempting to bolster online defences. Only last week, US homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano met industrialists at the White House to "discuss DHS's current efforts to secure cyberspace".

Napolitano says the DHS is "working with partners at universities and the private sector...to protect against evolving cyber threats". Whether those threats will be variants of this new breed of home-grown cyberweapon remains to be seen.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1754 on: June 13, 2012, 01:33:32 PM »
Why we may never know who created Flame virus

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.600-why-we-may-never-know-who-created-flame-virus.html

HERE we go again. Antivirus firms are warning that another computer worm has evaded their radar. Nicknamed Flame, it is described as one of the most complex viruses ever and has the power to cripple national infrastructure. But a full two years after the last major threat - Stuxnet - was discovered, its authors have still not been exposed, although new evidence suggests they work for US and Israeli intelligence (see "Obama 'gave full backing to Stuxnet attack on Iran'"). So what chance is there of tracking down the creators of this latest threat?

Parts of Flame surfaced online as far back as 2004, according to Boldizsár Bencsáth of the Crysys Lab at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics in Hungary. Despite this, it was not formally identified until Kaspersky Lab of Moscow, Russia, discovered what was deleting data on hundreds of computers across the Middle East. Iran and Israel took the biggest hits, with Flame even briefly disrupting Iran's oil industry, according to senior Iranian officials.

On 28 May, Kaspersky revealed the cause: an all-in-one "worm, trojan and backdoor" it dubbed Flame. It is a remotely reprogrammable data stealer that can seize, transmit and then delete files. Its six-megabyte heart can download extra modules until it swells to 20 MB, giving it a broad range of data-stealing tricks, says Gavin O'Gorman at Symantec's lab in Dublin, Ireland. "It's most likely this info-stealing is for espionage. It can turn a mic on to record audio, or video what you are doing on screen," he says.

It's stealthy, too. Iran's national Computer Emergency Response Team says the code's malicious components were undetectable by 43 antivirus programs. "Stuxnet, Duqu and Flame are all examples of cases where we - the antivirus industry - have failed," says Mikko Hypponen, founder of antivirus firm F-Secure. But while the industry tries to work out why it failed, it looks almost impossible for the malware's creators to be found.

Here's why. "If I write the code 'print "Hello"' and then load it to a forum via a proxy or Tor connection, what link is there to me? Simply, none. The same principle exists with malware," says Nick Furneaux of e-forensics firm CSITech in

Bristol, UK. Attackers can also cover their tracks by bouncing commands to the malware via cascades of servers, says Bencsáth. "If an attacker hides by using multiple jumping points, it is almost impossible to identify them," he says. "And the forensics mostly lead you to a computer that is fully cleared, erased."

To catch them, investigators have to pray their quarry makes a mistake. "I've seen mistakes made in malware such as hard coding IP and email addresses, or a user name, which can be used to find the perpetrator," says Furneaux. Another giveaway is coding style, says O'Gorman: "You might find file-naming conventions or how data is passed between functions is characteristic of a known coder." Indeed, it was a coding mistake that revealed Stuxnet existed.

Robert Ghanea-Hercock, a security researcher at BT's lab in Ipswich, UK, hopes their emerging AI-based pattern recognition system, Saturn, will snare threats like Flame. It "will sense the subtle network disruptions and cyber footprints left by such attacks", instantly alerting security analysts, he says. This might help, says Bencsáth: "If the attackers are caught mid-attack, and they do not know about it, it becomes possible to track them down."

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk