How Obama was dangerously naive about STUXNET and cyberwarfare
June 4, 2012
(Credit: Makki98/Wikimedia Commons)
A Times exposé suggests that the White House failed to consider how our own cyberweapons would be used against us, Technology Review Mims’s Bits reports.
If the New York Times‘ comprehensive account of the birth of the STUXNET worm that slowed Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium tells us anything, it’s that the Obama administration was remarkably naive about the potential for the proliferation of the cyberweapons it was developing.
Then, in Summer 2010, an event the administration should have anticipated occurred: The STUXNET worm got loose and started replicating outside the Iranian enrichment plant that had been its target. In the wild, on the Internet, its was exposed for everyone to see.
Didn’t it occur to anyone in the room that, once unleashed, this kind of attack would mean that every piece of critical computer-controlled infrastructure in the U.S. would have to be evaluated, and forever-after upgraded, in order to defend against such an attack?
Comments (24)
by Christian Gehman
Pay attention … Stuxnet had at least two parts. One did some damage. the other hid itself in bits of code and continued the main mission: reporting back.
by Robby777
Narrow, focused mindset is to blame. The end never justifies the means, unless it is an exiinction level event. Start over. Rethink gov’t. Turn them all out. This may be the last chance. The non citizens and the dead vote
Democrat.
by Giant Robo
Sort of like the AIDS bioweapon they released into Africa. Or the hacked stealth drone now being cloned in iran. Didn’t think the reciprocal nature of those attacks through either. So this is par for the course. Dumb and dumber. USA government is the perfect equilibrium of stupid with evil.
by Nils Davis
I am a little surprised that this is even news. Of course STUXNET or its technology would come back against us. And something equivalent would have happened even if the U.S. had not developed STUXNET.
I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but people actually shoot at us with *guns,* can you believe it? Where did they get that technology? And bombs triggered with cellphones. Didn’t we think about that before we allowed cellphones to become ubiquitous?
There’s no way to avoid an accelerating arms race in anything that can be used as a weapon, and that means literally anything. Sometimes a government has to unleash a secret weapon in a conflict and then it’s no longer a secret. That’s just Reality World ™ at work. And in the computer age, once something’s no longer secret, it’s essentially free.
But, in the meantime, Iran’s nuclear program, whatever you think of it, was set back one or two years. STUXNET achieved its tactical objective. Its strategic danger was always apparent, and I’m sure someone is doing something about that as well. In fact, I’m sure POTUS had this discussion, if indeed STUXNET was authorized at that high a level.
by Prahab Gunjati
Your last paragraph was highly intelligent and appreciated. In simple strategy and tactics are different games.
by Bob Vasquez
Good answers. Fairness is best in seeking truth,
by kilgatron
Editor, I think that your article stands, and I’m an Obama supporter.Most critical thinkers will be able to figure that the POTUS does not have to be a computer genius to lead, but he must have the best tech people in place. Somebody goofed.
by Jon
Thank you Editor and Kurzweilai….
Great share as always.
by egore
Reminds me of killer bees being released in South America. Please dont pick on the Editor. The Editor saves me lots and lots of time. on subjects I am interested in. If I dont agree with a story, it is up to me to not have to read it.
by egore
Kind of reminds me of when killer bees were loosed in South America. Please dont pick on Editor. She might decide to start charging for all the work that is done on this editorial.
by Editor
“might decide to start charging …” [Smacks self on forehead] Why didn’t I think of that? Great idea! LOL
by David U
I get an email that contains the headlines to the stories, then a little summary of the story. If I do not have an interest in a particular story, then I just do not click on the link,
I think it is impossible to bring up the technology of computer worms and cyber warfare without occationally involving politics.
This web site is not just about science and technology. If is also about how science and technology will shape our future, for better or for worse.
by Bob Vasquez
Dandy excuse, “We don’t change headlines…” No, but, you do select them. Stick to science and technology is excellent advice; that’s why we subscribe.
by TimothyI
Actually the original article was from the NY Times which had a different, less inflammatory title. This title came from a single blogger in the MIT Technology Review, who appears to have serious political biases.
Blaming the president for not detecting the technical ramifications of Stuxnet would be like blaming Eisenhower for the misfiring problems in the first M-16 rifles. Yes, the buck stops there, but seriously…was he supposed to overrule all of the security professionals and programmers who advised him on this?
by Editor
I used the Tech Review piece because it was short and accessible (the NY Times piece was long and users over their monthly quota are blocked, plus the Tech Review piece was linked to the Times, so readers would know about it), and Tech Review is credible overall. I didn’t think of the POTUS role as relevant, since I don’t have very much interest in politics, but I can understand that some might be offended.
by David U
“Didn’t it occur to anyone in the room that, once unleashed, this kind of attack would mean that every piece of critical computer-controlled infrastructure in the U.S. would have to be evaluated, and forever-after upgraded, in order to defend against such an attack?” – or lead to more government, grow the MIC, and less liberty for the citizens. Perhaps it occured to everyone in the room. They could be naive, stupid, or smart and power hungry.
by Editor
“every piece of critical computer-controlled infrastructure”: yes, such as the Microsoft Certificate Authority — a critical problem for Windows users: see
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Microsoft-Patches-Digital-Certificate-Flaw-Exploited-by-Flame-237271/ and
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/advisory/2718704
by Peter
Was Obama naive? I doubt it. The evidence is that he is deeply engaged in the decision process, relies on advice, and employs his considerable intelligence. Do you agree or disagree with his decision? – Well, that is a different matter. I am disappointed to see a headline that is mere propaganda and an article which could have more effectively pointed out the downside of this action but which provided NO support for the assertion that it was not considered. It is precisely this kind of article which, whether you agree or disagree with the decision, undermines thoughtful and considered political dialog. My advice: Stick to science and technology; Excursions into political propaganda just make you appear to be either shallow or cynical.
by Editor
We don’t change headlines when we link to news from other websites.
by Geoffrey Pierce
I suggest you do. Leave the poltics out of the story. You could have written a story about the hazards of releasing the virus without disparaging the President.
by Editor
We don’t change the headline because we believe it would be misleading, and we wouldn’t write a story about this because it’s not something we have researched.
by Mark Harrison
Now I’m confused.
You don’t research it – you just stick it up, without even an editorial comment, on this site (and the associated newsletter.)
Well, of all the things that don’t actually require Human Intelligence (see Ray’s book – The Singularity Is Near), it seems that being an editor may be one of them!
by Dwee
Saying Obama has considerable intelligence is racist. Tsk tsk. No one ever talks about Clinton’s considerable intelligence for instance, it is assumed. Anyway, intelligence is not that uncommon. Wisdom however, is very rare.
by Bri
It’s the endless escalation of retaliation. Kind of sounds MAD doesn’t it? No different than the drone issue. Let’s all have a good shoot out at the O K Coral. Ray talks about the power of fax machines, cell phones, Arab spring like conflict resolution. Ahhhhhh sagacity.