Hearing a lot of "what about Stuxnet" arguments for why nuclear safety systems aren't safe. Here's my thoughts on why that's not accurate:
-
-
Replying to @RobertMLee
Stuxnet's "cool factor" wasn't in the 4 zero day exploits it was in the knowledge of how to impact the centrifuges to destroy them
19 replies 66 retweets 178 likes -
Replying to @RobertMLee
That knowledge isn't something you can buy. Only a handful of people in the world could have even dreamed of pulling that off.
4 replies 8 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @RobertMLee
Additionally, lots of intelligence gathering occurred in and off the networks before. Estimates are 3-6 years worth of operations.
3 replies 6 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @RobertMLee
Additionally from what we know publicly it took two first world powers using HUMINT, SIGINT, and cyber to orchestrate the attack.
1 reply 10 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @RobertMLee
So while the threat to nuclear from cyber is a real concern because of impact it's very improbable and "what about Stuxnet" is a high bar
3 replies 7 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @RobertMLee
Or said more simply: phishing emails are lightyears removed from "what about Stuxnet" arguments. It's simply otherworldly in comparison.
2 replies 23 retweets 56 likes -
Replying to @RobertMLee
Not sure if your point is clear (or maybe I'm misunderstanding). You're still saying, "sabotage takes a ton of intel," no?
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @RobertMLee
Yeah if I'm reading correctly: Phishing=leaving yr car unlocked w/ the keys in Stuxnet=US & Israel _might_ hack my car, drive it into a wall
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes
Russia might too! It is a danger. But...if we're going to villainize that, we need to be aware we're by far on the wrong side of that norm
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.