Author Topic: Zero Days (2016)  (Read 1175 times)

Zero Days (2016)
« on: January 08, 2017, 07:39:54 AM »
It's the documentary of an act of terrorism. Probbaly multiple. It's really a scary documentary movie. How many people have seen this I wonder.   





Quote
Storyline

Documentary detailing claims of American/Israeli jointly developed malware Stuxnet being deployed not only to destroy Iranian enrichment centrifuges but also threaten attacks against Iranian civilian infrastructure. Adresses obvious potential blowback of this possibly being deployed against the US by Iran in retaliation.

Quote
Michael Hayden: Look, for longest time, I was in fear that I couldn't say the phrase Computer Network Attack. This stuff is hideously over classified and it gets into the way of a mature public discussion as to what it is we as a democracy want our nation to be doing up here in the cyber domain. Now, this is the former director of NSA and CIA saying this stuff is over classified. One of the reasons it's highly classified as it is: this is a peculiar weapon system. This is the weapon system that's come out of the espionage community, and so those people have a habit of secrecy.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 08:34:21 AM by drunkenshoe »

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2017, 08:40:50 AM »
@Nonsensei, while I am not sure how I feel about what I said in our discussion about the gradual bad end of humanity after seeing this, I have no idea of any kind of war anymore. Nobody needs a nuclear war it seems. We are so behind it as usual as people. 

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2017, 09:06:41 AM »
It seems these days that it would be easier and cheaper to attack an industrialized nation's infrastructure via cyberattacks than any nuke. Nukes are a nice trophy to show off in the game of international politics, but if I can shut your country's power or other utilities down with a few lines of code then I gain both the advantage of not spending my missiles (those things are expensive and hard to make) and having some plausible deniability should it go wrong.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2017, 11:31:08 AM »
It seems these days that it would be easier and cheaper to attack an industrialized nation's infrastructure via cyberattacks than any nuke. Nukes are a nice trophy to show off in the game of international politics, but if I can shut your country's power or other utilities down with a few lines of code then I gain both the advantage of not spending my missiles (those things are expensive and hard to make) and having some plausible deniability should it go wrong.

Yeah. Please watch the movie till the end. It's not very long. Consequences of Stuxnet virus proved far far beyond a simple attack on a specific target.

The documentary explains or let's say helped me to understand why US-Israel relations took a bad turn in the last svereal years and the possible advancing -probably already advanced- Iran nuclear program. And why now they have one of the largest cyber attack army in the world.     
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 11:51:34 AM by drunkenshoe »

Offline Baruch

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2017, 09:20:18 PM »
This is why the IoT or Internet of Things is a bad bad idea.  The big DoS attack on 10/21 was done by zombies ... not user PCs, but security cameras etc that shouldn't be connected to the Internet.

http://www.welivesecurity.com/2016/10/24/10-things-know-october-21-iot-ddos-attacks/

No doubt the authorities want their autonomous vehicles connected to the Internet as well ... what could go wrong?

Computer security isn't a problem, stupidity is a problem.
שלום

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2017, 12:18:45 AM »
This reminds me of a young man who has the biggest dick showing his dick off to the entire world confident that his dick is and always will be the greatest dick ever so he should be the only dick never mindful that all the women he fucks will have children who will someday grow up with bigger and better dicks and someday his dick will be old and shriveled.
Sorry for the sexual innuendo.. ;)
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2017, 12:21:25 AM »
This reminds me of a young man who has the biggest dick showing his dick off to the entire world confident that his dick is and always will be the greatest dick ever so he should be the only dick never mindful that all the women he fucks will have children who will someday grow up with bigger and better dicks and someday his dick will be old and shriveled.
Sorry for the sexual innuendo.. ;)

Well, it's definitely not my dick... Micro penis intensifies
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire

Maths is a game where you make the rules and play around within them.

In a nutshell
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2017, 04:36:31 AM »
-Israel asks USA to help them to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Doesn't matter how good their air force, they can't do it by themselves and for the obvious reasons they need a bigger guy with more power.

-USA understands perfectly that what they are actually saying that 'let us start a war with Iran, then you go fight the war'. This is happening after invasion of Irak and Afghanistan.

-USA declines. Even though we can't be sure, there is this impression that Bush was OK with this, but his consultants say -pointed out as Rice in the documentary- "No, Mr. President, you invaded your last Islamic country with Irak."

-After some time, Israel comes with a new offer to the USA. "Hey guys, we have an idea, there is another way to get in. We'll design a virus so advanced and high, it will let stop Iran's nuclear facilities. NSA says let's do it.

The virus first surfaces in Belarus and eventually all around the world. And of course ends up in people who actually legally work against malware an provide people aid for it.

-It arrives to two coworkers in Symantec. They immediately understand that this virus is not something they have seen before -or anyone else for that matter- and they start to 'solve' it. They name it Stuxnet.

They also check that which region in the world was the most affected: Iran. It is designed to target specific machines, one is openly named in the doc. as Siemens.





At a point they cannot go forward, they get help from another expert who informs them that there should be certain set of mumbers for certain operatives systems in the malware which our hero nerds names as 'Magic Numbers'. By the help of these numbers they find out that this worm is designed to target a specific facility.

They realise that the worm has the capability of controlling machinery and can cause physical destruction. They find out that the virus collects data for 13 days and then take control of the machines work by automation. And does that so subtle, engineers don't even understand what is wrong with the process, because vritually nothing is wrong. Which what happens in Iran when it was operated. Basically, screws up the uranium enrichment santrufuges. (2010)

During that time a nuclear engineer in Iran is murdered which becomes a mainstream news and Hillary openly rejects the accusations.

In short, eventually this thing becomes unavoidable and impossible to supress, because it screws up countless machines and factories around the world from Northern Europe to Australia, from Russia to the USA itself.

The security responsible from cyber attacks in the USA is not informed in any level. In panic they rightfully think this is a severe attack against USA.

Everybody is asking questions about something undeniable, something tha can be proven. But nobody is getting any answers.



Conclusion:

-A cyber attack designed to prevent Iran from develop nuclear weaponry is technically a declaration of war and a huge violation of the international law. It's an act of terrorism. The attack needs a presidential sign off just like a nuclear attack. Both Bush and Obama gave it. (Obama reportedly talked against it.)

-But worse than that it just slows down Iran for a year or so and just because of this attack, Iran doesn't just have a better, more extensive and protected nuclear weapon facilities, they also have -reportedly- one of the largest cyber army in the world and they also have sent a 'message' back to the USA telling 'we heard you and get the message; war circumstances upgraded" which USA chose not to retaliate as reported.

-A worm such as complicated and dangerous as Stuxnet is in the hands of Russia, Iran and who knows whoelse.

-While there are tons of international regulations, sanctions and doctrines on nuclear weaponry, there is NOTHING on this new age warfare. While phsyical destruction and invasion is dedectable and open, and while the outcome is still can be manipulative in the media, as everyone knows and gets this kind of attacks are extremely obscure by nature. It's a fucking ghost.

-USA and Israel made this warfare 'legitimate'. And told the world that they can do it if they can get away with it but then again considering the nature of the technology what does it matter 'who-when and how' after an irreversible damage is done.

You can kill, destroy, destroy production, paralyse the life of a whole country. Their economy...shut down power, water...ect. And you can even get away with it, let another target to be attacked...etc. Use your imagination.

-There is a need of an open international agreements about this warfare so there should be sanctions, limits and doctrines and a new international law.


« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 06:41:23 AM by drunkenshoe »

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2017, 04:50:40 AM »
It seems to me that NSA actually used this documentary as an opportunity -director is the man who did the scientology thing- to inform people generally without giving actual knowledge on past, resolved events. Because they infected and risked their own too and it is natural that a lot of people wanted to leaak and talk about it.

What I do not get is, in the documentary one of the top officals say that this was a successful operation, mentioning something about buying time. Time for what. If the objective was to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons which is the first goal in principle why Isreal offered this, it failed. May be I got it wrong.

But then this is a long time going on operation and think about how Israel-US relations start to declined since. Why I am making that connection is that an actress talking on behalf of people from NSA or CIA who didn't want to risk themselves, but wanted to talk conveys that 'while the original worm was an undedetable subtle weapon Israel took it and made it far far more agressive and fucked everything up.'

Then there is the report of the president of Argentine, openly telling to the UN Security council in front of the whole world that 'US requested they sell Iran light enriched uranium.' (The speech of Cristina Fernandez was posted.)

A lot of policies have changed because this operation. Obviously, we don't know and can't trust many things that was reported. But we can discuss the consequences, because this needs people to talk about it openly to push governments to find a regulation ground and get under some sort of a law specific to it. Just like nukes got in the past. And that partially happened because of the fear and panic and the reactions people gave.


« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 04:59:31 AM by drunkenshoe »

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2017, 07:05:27 AM »
I watched this movie and had a different reaction than you DS.

First of all I wasn't particularly concerned about the effectiveness of this new form of attack for two reasons:
1) In order to create a designer worm to affect specific real life machinery, you need inside intelligence on the machinery, as demonstrated in the movie. This isn't the sort of weapon you can create en masse and fire blind at any target. It requires an enormous amount of intelligence and pre-planning as well as expertise to create a worm that can do what stuxnet does and you have to create a new variation for every target.

2) The primary advantage of stuxnet is that it was a new form of attack. Now that it is generally known that this sort of attack is possible, it will be possible to defend against it and detect it. In the video they said one of the primary effects of stuxnet was Iranian nuclear scientists being fired for incompetence. That happened because they didn't know that an attack like stuxnet was impossible. Now that they know, it will be the first thing they check for.

3) Stuxnet exploited a number of zero day exploits. Zero day exploits are so valuable because they have never been seen before and are therefore guaranteed to work. In essence they are unknown exploits in windows that can only really be used for a limited period of time before they are patched. There are a limited number of these zero day exploits in existence which brings me to my final point.

4) We are eventually going to reach a state of technology where none of these exploits are possible because airtight operating systems are being produced. The march of technology dictates that this will one day be true. The only reason stuxnet can work as an attack is because of how new and immature our computer technology is. The internet itself is only a few decades old. Its a very young technology. As it matures, this sort of bullshit will become less and less possible.

(as a side note, stuxnet only worked because the machines in charge of regulating the centrifuges were running windows 7. What if they had been running Linux or something?)

Now, as for the attack itself it was probably a bad idea. It slowed down the Iranian nuclear program by a year. The documentary explains this, but doesn't really explain whether or not it was worth it. What did we gain out of that year. I feel that the attack could have been spent on something more valuable, especially for something that only has limited usefulness.

SOMEONE would like me to talk about whether or not this counts as terrorism.. By the strictest definition, I don't believe it does. As far as I know, nobody died as a result of the stuxnet virus. Also, this was a state funded attack on another state not some guy blowing himself up in a cafeteria.

HOWEVER, it did have the same sort of effect that a terrorist attach might have. It galvanized the iranians and caused them to create a rather effective cyber ops defense/offense wing. Thats really not good, although I also feel like it was inevitable regardless of whether or not stuxnet happened. much like we prodded Iran into pursuing nuclear weapons at an accelerated rate, we also prodded them into developing cyber warfare capabilities at an accelerated rate. This is what happens when you keep launching only partially effective attacks at a sovereign nation. They find a way to make it impossible to be victimized in that way again, and they figure out how to turn the weapon back on its wielder.

In other words, we fucked up the middle east by invading, but also by provoking Iran.

When will US intelligence learn its lesson?
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

Offline Baruch

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2017, 07:07:54 AM »
Israel is a problem.  Iran is a problem.  Shall we nuke both of them?  History is a gift that keeps on giving particularly when you want it to stop.  Internet plague is a real thing, and Israel didn't invent it ... the US did.  Personally I don't care if Israel has nukes, or Iran.  The problem with Iran is that if Iran has nukes, then SA and Qatar feel they have to have them too.  So yes, lets nuke Qatar and SA as well, since they are the primary backers of ISIS.  I think the present Turkish authoritarians are simply exploiting the current ISIS situation for money, they aren't backing it.

The US Intel community thinks they are legends in their own minds.  Definitely biggest dick contest there.  Fact is Mossad and CIA frequently get things wrong.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 07:09:31 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2017, 07:20:30 AM »
I watched this movie and had a different reaction than you DS.

First of all I wasn't particularly concerned about the effectiveness of this new form of attack for two reasons:
1) In order to create a designer worm to affect specific real life machinery, you need inside intelligence on the machinery, as demonstrated in the movie. This isn't the sort of weapon you can create en masse and fire blind at any target. It requires an enormous amount of intelligence and pre-planning as well as expertise to create a worm that can do what stuxnet does and you have to create a new variation for every target.

2) The primary advantage of stuxnet is that it was a new form of attack. Now that it is generally known that this sort of attack is possible, it will be possible to defend against it and detect it. In the video they said one of the primary effects of stuxnet was Iranian nuclear scientists being fired for incompetence. That happened because they didn't know that an attack like stuxnet was impossible. Now that they know, it will be the first thing they check for.

3) Stuxnet exploited a number of zero day exploits. Zero day exploits are so valuable because they have never been seen before and are therefore guaranteed to work. In essence they are unknown exploits in windows that can only really be used for a limited period of time before they are patched. There are a limited number of these zero day exploits in existence which brings me to my final point.

4) We are eventually going to reach a state of technology where none of these exploits are possible because airtight operating systems are being produced. The march of technology dictates that this will one day be true. The only reason stuxnet can work as an attack is because of how new and immature our computer technology is. The internet itself is only a few decades old. Its a very young technology. As it matures, this sort of bullshit will become less and less possible.

(as a side note, stuxnet only worked because the machines in charge of regulating the centrifuges were running windows 7. What if they had been running Linux or something?)

Now, as for the attack itself it was probably a bad idea. It slowed down the Iranian nuclear program by a year. The documentary explains this, but doesn't really explain whether or not it was worth it. What did we gain out of that year. I feel that the attack could have been spent on something more valuable, especially for something that only has limited usefulness.

SOMEONE would like me to talk about whether or not this counts as terrorism.. By the strictest definition, I don't believe it does. As far as I know, nobody died as a result of the stuxnet virus. Also, this was a state funded attack on another state not some guy blowing himself up in a cafeteria.

HOWEVER, it did have the same sort of effect that a terrorist attach might have. It galvanized the iranians and caused them to create a rather effective cyber ops defense/offense wing. Thats really not good, although I also feel like it was inevitable regardless of whether or not stuxnet happened. much like we prodded Iran into pursuing nuclear weapons at an accelerated rate, we also prodded them into developing cyber warfare capabilities at an accelerated rate. This is what happens when you keep launching only partially effective attacks at a sovereign nation. They find a way to make it impossible to be victimized in that way again, and they figure out how to turn the weapon back on its wielder.

In other words, we fucked up the middle east by invading, but also by provoking Iran.

When will US intelligence learn its lesson?

OK. It makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.



[You are basically stroking my hair and saying 'calm down, there is no need to panic'. :redface: Revenge will be severe and in 'whisper' :p]

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2017, 08:18:31 AM »
OK. It makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.



[You are basically stroking my hair and saying 'calm down, there is no need to panic'. :redface: Revenge will be severe and in 'whisper' :p]


Oh? If I am going to have revenge taken on me then I feel I should do more to earn it.

*I comb my fingers hrough your hair, lean close and gently whisper: "Donald Trump is a transient threat that will diminish in importance as time passes. He cannot do any real lasting harm and will probably be bogged down and rendered impotent by social and political strife as opposition to his brand of politics inevitably solidifies"

*My fingers pass through the bottom of your hair and I gently scrape my nails down the side of your neck. "BLM has survived as a movement longer than any other protest group in recent history. The longer it lasts the greater it's power and capability to execute real change in the social makeup of america."

*My hands cup your head at the base of your neck and I lean in close, staring into your eyes. "Terrorism as an institution is doomed to ultimate failure. The moment their actions galvanize their intended victims into action is also the moment the are doomed to destruction. Their extremist ideals die with them when they fall as a group and their fate serves as a lesson about the ultimate pointless nature of terrorism itself".

There. Revenge earned.
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2017, 09:20:34 AM »
Oh? If I am going to have revenge taken on me then I feel I should do more to earn it.

*I comb my fingers hrough your hair, lean close and gently whisper: "Donald Trump is a transient threat that will diminish in importance as time passes. He cannot do any real lasting harm and will probably be bogged down and rendered impotent by social and political strife as opposition to his brand of politics inevitably solidifies"

*My fingers pass through the bottom of your hair and I gently scrape my nails down the side of your neck. "BLM has survived as a movement longer than any other protest group in recent history. The longer it lasts the greater it's power and capability to execute real change in the social makeup of america."

*My hands cup your head at the base of your neck and I lean in close, staring into your eyes. "Terrorism as an institution is doomed to ultimate failure. The moment their actions galvanize their intended victims into action is also the moment the are doomed to destruction. Their extremist ideals die with them when they fall as a group and their fate serves as a lesson about the ultimate pointless nature of terrorism itself".

There. Revenge earned.

Ohhhhhhhh.

I am not 100 % sure, but I think, I just heavily swooned. Thank you. I want to 'hug' you so bad right now. That's really not a hug btw, lol, didn't know what  to write. Lol.


Offline SGOS

Re: Zero Days (2016)
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2017, 11:04:13 AM »
It seems these days that it would be easier and cheaper to attack an industrialized nation's infrastructure via cyberattacks than any nuke. Nukes are a nice trophy to show off in the game of international politics, but if I can shut your country's power or other utilities down with a few lines of code then I gain both the advantage of not spending my missiles (those things are expensive and hard to make) and having some plausible deniability should it go wrong.

This is interesting, and you may be exactly right.  There's an axiom about military infrastructure that says something like, "Generals spend too much time fighting the last war."  The suggestion here is that as civilizations advance (often in unpredictable ways), military defenses need to change, accordingly.  Superficially, we tend to think of something along the lines of bigger bombs, new delivery systems, or some advancement in the technology of military hardware.  But maybe we are approaching an era where more powerful hardware does not reign supreme (however, it will always play a part, I think).  The new military infrastructure required for defense will be a surprise.  It always is a surprise.  Perhaps it will be something that doesn't deliver bombs or bullets.  Maybe, it involves thinking a little farther outside the box.