WarSclerotic

Stuxnet Targeting Specific SCADA Configurations.

The debate on whether or not the Israelis wrote the Stuxnet malware rages on – but it seems pretty clear from the research from ESET and Siemens own findings – here that the virus is apparently only activated in plants with a specific configuration.

To be exact – the target is not the SCADA system itself but rather the Siemens WinCC visualization and process monitoring software – WinCC which runs on standard Windows platforms as I pointed out in a previous post, and not on a hardened version of Windows as Shai Blitzblau seems to think.

Note also – that standard anti-virus programs with updated signatures as of August 2010 remove Stuxnet, so the continued propagation of the malware is either via a mutation or on Windows systems not running an anti-virus, which would not be too surprising, since apparently most Siemens WinCC installations are still using default admin passwords.

Analysis of virus and status of investigations

• The virus has been isolated on a test system in order to carry out more extensive investigations. Previously analyzed properties and the behavior of the virus in the software environment of the test system suggest that we are not dealing with the random development of one hacker, but with the product of a team of experts who must have IT expertise as well as specific know-how about industrial controls, their deployment in industrial production processes and corresponding engineering knowledge.
• As far as we know at the moment, industrial controls from Siemens are affected. The Trojan is activated whenever WinCC or PCS7 software from Siemens is installed.
• Further investigations have shown that the virus can theoretically influence specific processes and operations in a very specific automation environment or plant configuration in addition to passing on data. This means that the malware is able, under certain boundary conditions, to influence the processing of operations in the control system. However, this behavior has not yet been verified in tests or in practice.
• The behavioral pattern of Stuxnet suggests that the virus is apparently only activated in plants with a specific configuration. It deliberately searches for a certain technical constellation with certain modules and certain program patterns which apply to a specific production process. This pattern can, for example, be localized by one specific data block and two code blocks.
• This means that Stuxnet is obviously targeting a specific process or a plant and not a particular brand or process technology and not the majority of industrial applications.

This conclusion also coincides with the number of cases known to Siemens where the virus was detected but had not been activated, and could be removed without any damage being done up to now.

This kind of specific plant was not among the cases that we know about.

IDF Historian: The Left Won’t Wake Up Until It’s Too Late – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News.

by David Lev

Earlier this week, Military Intelligence head Amos Yadlin presented what many called a very pessimistic forecast before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. According to Yadlin, the regional is moving inexorably towards war, and that the coming war would be the most difficult Israel ever faced.

But perhaps even more serious was the forecast by Israel’s  IDF military history expert Dr. Uri Milstein, a respected researcher and iconoclastic analyst . “I have begun to have my doubts as to whether the IDF is up to the task of defending this country,” Milstein told Arutz 7. “Our enemies have grown stronger, while in some circles, our motivation has fallen. Part of our society is frightened. Even if more people die on their side, they are more willing to sacrifice than we are.”

In his presentation before the committee, Yadlin sketched out the formidable facing Israel in the coming years and explained which group in Israel is the cause of his remarks. Yadlin said that in the coming war, Israel’s enemies would attack on at least two fronts, “if not more. We cannot draw any conclusions about future battles from the Second Lebanon War or from Cast Lead, but we can say a future war will be more massive and widespread, with many more casualties.”

The threat comes from the thousands of “cheap missiles” Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas have acquired, along with sophisticated defense systems now in the hands of Syria, and perhaps Hizbullah as well. “Our enemies have been following a strategy based on the belief that the only way to overcome Israel’s deterrence is through long range missile fire and improving air defense capabilities.” As such, they have been doing whatever they could to acquire both offensive and defensive systems. Russia has been a great help in this regard, Yadlin remarked.

At the meeting, Yadlin also focused on Iran, telling Mks that his group has discovered two new nuclear installations in Iran. “Iran declared it would set up ten new nuclear facilities, and Military Intelligence has identified two of them.” He added that the IDF knew much more about Iran’s nuclear program than in the past, and that most of the “black holes” in Iran’s deployment had been filled in. He added that soon Iran would have enough uranium now for at least one nuclear bomb.

Speaking to Arutz 7, Milstein, who has long been critical of the IDF and political establishment’s management of Israel’s defense, said that little has changed since the Yom Kippur war, which Milstein critiqued in the first of over two dozen books he has written over the years. Describing Yadlin’s straightforward presentation of the troubles Israel is facing as “better late than never,” Milstein said that Yadlin, who was military intelligence chief during the Second Lebanon war, had apparently learned a lesson.

In the past, Milstein has written that in that war, as in previous battles, Yadlin and other security chiefs did not realize that advanced weapons alone are not enough for victory. “Now it seems he does understand the situation,” Milstein said. “During the Second Lebanon War we did not achieve our goals of defeating Hizbullah, and instead they grew stronger. During Operation Cast Lead we attempted to strike a death blow to Hamas, but they just got stronger. So, obviously, the situation will be more difficult next time,” he said. Milstein doubts that the IDF will be able to achieve the goals it needs to during the coming war. “Our enemies have gotten much stronger, and they know how to accept losses much better than we can.”

The problem, Milstein says, is the left. “In the leftist bastions of Ramat Aviv and Kfar Shmaryahu, they are still convinced that peace will come if we give up Judea and Samaria and the Golan. They probably won’t change their minds even if missiles rain down on Tel Aviv. The only way they will change their mind is if we do surrender these areas, and they find that the Arabs still make war against us.”

Milstein, who was appointed official historian of the paratroopers by the late Rafael Eitan, has written histories of each of Israel’s wars, including the War of Independence. In 1995 he published a work critical of Yitzchak Rabin during his tenure as commander of the Palmach pre-state fighting organization, called “The Rabin File: How the Myth Was Inflated.” After Rabin’s assassination, Milstein was discharged from Bar-Ilan University on account of his writings about Rabin.

One theme in his books is that Israel has been in thrall to the left, at least since the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Nearly all aspects of the IDF are politicized, he says, from the way its history is presented to the way it trains officers. If is this “intellectual prison” that Israel must break free from if it hopes to prevail in the next war. But, he says, “unfortunately for us, the left is still a prisoner of this false vision of peace with the Arabs.”

Attrition: Israel Braces For The Iranian Rain Of Fire.

November 5, 2010: The head of Israeli military intelligence warned his political superiors that the next major war Israel encountered would likely result in much higher Israeli casualties, especially to civilians. There is also growing concern about Russia selling advanced anti-aircraft systems to Syria, which could pass them on to Iran.All this could be traced back to preparations Iran has been making for over a decade. Using their oil wealth, and weapons smuggling network, Iran has armed Syria, Hezbollah (the Shia militia in southern Lebanon) and Hamas (the Palestinian terrorist group that runs Gaza) with over 50,000 rockets, plus numerous other weapons. Most of the rockets are short range (about 10 kilometers), but several thousand have a much longer reach, and can hit targets throughout Israel. The Iranian master plan is for Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran to simultaneously fire as many missiles and rockets into Israel as they can. Even if there are no ground forces to follow up such an attack, the casualties (civilian and military) in Israel would be seen as a great Islamic victory, and would demoralize the Israelis. While Israeli defensive moves could do great damage to Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, Iran considers it a reasonable plan. Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas are not so sure, but Iran already has all the rockets and missiles in place.

Israeli military planners have seen this coming. Over the last three years, Israel has been revising its civil defense plans, and how to deal with the growing arsenal of rockets and ballistic missiles aimed at it. The latest change is the announcement that the military is dispersing its stocks of supplies, equipment and spare parts to a larger number of (better protected) locations.

The basic defense plan assumes a future war with Syria, and gives the local officials an idea of what to expect. Currently, the Israelis estimate that there would be as many as 3,300 Israeli casualties (including up to 200 dead) if Syria tried to use its long range missiles against Israel. If the Syrians used chemical warheads, Israeli casualties could be as high as 16,000. Over 200,000 Israelis would be left homeless, and it’s believed about a 100,000 would seek to leave the country.

Israel now assumes that Iran would also fire some of its ballistic missiles as well, armed with conventional warheads. But the big danger is Syria, which is a client state of Iran. Syria has underground storage and launch facilities for its arsenal of over a thousand SCUD missiles. Armed with half ton high explosive and cluster bomb warheads, the missiles have ranges of 500-700 kilometers. Syria also has some 90 older Russian Frog-7 missiles (70 kilometer range, half ton warhead) and 210 more modern Russian SS-21 missiles (120 kilometer range, half ton warhead) operating with mobile launchers. There are also 60 mobile SCUD launchers. The Syrians have a large network of camouflaged launching sites for the mobile launchers. Iran and North Korea have helped Syria build underground SCUD manufacturing and maintenance facilities. The Syrian missiles are meant to hit Israeli airfields, missile launching sites and nuclear weapons sites, as well as population centers. Syria hopes to do enough damage with a missile strike to cripple Israeli combat capability.

Israel has long been aware of the Syrian capabilities and any war with Syria would probably result in some interesting attacks on the Syrian missile network. The SCUD is a liquid fuel missile and takes half an hour or more to fuel and ready for launch. So underground facilities are a major defensive measure against an alert and astute opponent like Israel.

But Syria has been adding a lot of solid fuel ballistic missiles to its inventory, and recently transferred some of these to Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Hezbollah and Syria would likely coordinate an attack on Israel. Hamas, in Gaza, is a semi-client of Iran, and might be persuaded to join in as well.

No unclassified government planning documents have discussed what Israel would do in response to such an attack, but in the past, Israel has threatened to use nukes against anyone who fired chemical weapons at Israel (which does not have any chemical weapons). But current plans appear to try and keep it non-nuclear for as long as possible.

Obama’s Mideast failure – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Obama’s policy turned Mideast into house of cards ready to collapse into Iran’s hands

Shoula Romano Horing

By winning the House of Representatives so overwhelmingly, pro-Israel Republicans now have the responsibility to stop Obama from pressuring Israel to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Such state would weaken Israeli and US strategic interests in the Middle East, while benefiting only Iran.

After two years of the failed Obama’s “engagement” policy, the entire Middle East has become a house of cards ready to collapse into Iran’s hands – the only country stopping it is a strong Israel.If Israel were to withdraw to the 1967 borders, it would be déjà vu of what happened in Gaza after Israel withdrew unilaterally. If the Israeli Army were to leave the West Bank, the new Palestinian state, as in Gaza, would rebuild its terrorist infrastructure with factories manufacturing rockets and explosives and train its young for war and terror against the Jewish state.

If Israel were pressured to leave its eastern border with Jordan known as the Jordan Rift Valley, rockets, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles would be smuggled in daily as would Islamic Jihadists from all over the Middle East. In time, Hamas would easily overthrow the weak and corrupt PA, as it did in 2007 in Gaza and rockets would be fired at Israeli communities on a daily basis, paralyzing most of Israel’s economy and daily life.When, inevitably, Israel defends itself by invading the West Bank, the international community would denounce Israel, investigate, and isolate it. Israel would be surrounded by Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria on all its borders. The new Hamastan state would then undermine the stability of Jordan next door. This house of cards would fall under Iran’s influence when US forces leave Iraq and Afghanistan. When Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, the oil-rich Sunni countries of the Persian Gulf would be blackmailed to “obey” Iran.

Hezbollah grows stronger

Indeed, it seems that Obama’s “engagement” policy has only helped increase the power of Iran and its proxies. In order to coax Syria away from Iran, Obama reversed the Bush policy and ended Syria’s isolation. Despite the fact that Obama nominated the first US ambassador to Syria since 2005 and the many visits to Syria by US senior officials, Syria has boosted its military support for Hamas and Hezbollah and militants in Iraq as well as its ties with Iran. Meanwhile, since the 2006 war, Iran has quadrupled Hezbollah’s missile force and has invested about $1 billion in rehabilitating the war’s devastation.

While the Bush administration succeeded in pushing the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, the Obama administration has been less than aggressive in its backing of the pro-US Lebanese government as it tries to appease Syria. According to recent reports, Hezbollah and other pro-Syrian groups are preparing to seize control of the Lebanese government should the UN Hariri tribunal implicate the group in the assassination of the former prime minister.

After two years of the US attempt at engagement, Iran has been stalling and continuing to stockpile nuclear materials .This week, Europeans admitted that the new economic sanctions have so far failed to push Tehran toward compromise on its disputed nuclear program. Meanwhile, Iranian officials said they would not accept the new nuclear deal suggested by the US.

Now, the Israeli government must convince its Republicans allies not to let the above-mentioned worst case scenario of a Palestinian state to take shape under Obama’s watch.

Shoula Romano Horing was born and raised in Israel. She is an attorney in Kansas City, Missouri and a national speaker.. Her blog: www.shoularomanohoring.com

Saudi prince: Iran is on ‘explosive’ path in Middle East – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former ambassador to the U.S., says Washington shouldn’t take military steps against Iran to reassure Israel.

By Reuters

Iran is on an “explosive” course in the Middle East with its pursuit of nuclear enrichment and needs to clear up questions surrounding its program, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal said on Thursday.

Prince Turki, a former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to the United States, said Washington should not take military steps against Iran’s nuclear program to reassure Israelis over the peace process with Palestinians.

“No one denies that a nuclear Iran is a major international danger, but claiming that the U.S. must take military action against Iran to push forward the Israeli-Palestine peace process is to attempt to harvest apples by cutting down the tree,” he said.

Prince Turki, discussing the Middle East peace process in a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said a war over Iran’s nuclear program would be “calamitous and not just catastrophic.” It would turn back the clock on peacemaking across the Middle East, from Iraq to Israel, he said.

“The Iranians have to be aware of the explosive nature … of pursuing their present course of enrichment,” he said.

The United States last month announced plans to sell Saudi Arabia up to e60 billion in military aircraft, a deal designed to shore up Arab allies increasingly jittery over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The United States and other countries are concerned that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program is aimed at developing atomic weapons, but Tehran denies that. It says the enrichment program is to produce fuel for atomic power.

While the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty allows Iran to enrich uranium, “everybody recognizes that they have not lived up to the requirements” of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“They have to come clean on whatever it is that remains as question marks to the world community, and not just the United States and the West,” he added.

Iran has indicated it is willing to meet world powers involved in talks over the nuclear dispute — the United States, Germany, France, China, Britain and Russia — later this month at a time and place to be determined.

It would be the first meeting of the group in more than a year and the first since the United Nations, the United States and the European Union imposed tougher sanctions on Iran earlier this year.

The world powers are hoping Iran will agree to a swap of low-enriched uranium in exchange for nuclear fuel to power the Tehran Research Reactor.

“We do believe that the Tehran Research Reactor offer can create some confidence building,” U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said on Thursday.

He said the deal needed to be updated to account for additional uranium Iran has enriched over the past year, but Iran’s envoy to the IAEA in Vienna dismissed that proposal earlier this week.

	Iranian soldiers simulate battle to mark the anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war, September 26, 2010.
	Photo by: Reuters

DEBKA.

Adm. James G. Stavridis

The White House and the Pentagon last week discreetly asked NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Adm. James G. Stavridis, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to assign teams for drafting operational plans for US and NATO military action against the Iranian nuclear program.
This is reported exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘ sources in Washington.
Those teams would need to work with the heads of the US Armed Forces who would update them on American plans. Our sources add the wording of the request hints that unilateral US action against the Iranian nuclear installations is possible regardless of cooperation with NATO.
Our sources also say that the American request stressed three basic premises as guidelines for the NATO teams:
– NATO commanders were asked to draw up alternative operational plans for limited actions inside Iran.
– These plans must all fall short of precipitating total war with Iran. Any option that might generate all-out war with the Islamic Republic must be taken off the table.
– Regular exchanges will take place between US Armed Forces chiefs and the NATO drafting teams to coordinate any military actions against Iran.
This is the first time since the Cold War with Russia ended in the early 1990s that the United States is integrating NATO in its preparations for an armed conflict.
Ahead of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George Bush did not invite NATO to take part in the Iraq war. He also turned down a subsequent offer to join from alliance leaders. Instead, the Bush administration established the Multi-National Force-Iraq.
Now, seven years later, President Barack Obama has gone the internationalist route and asked NATO to assume a role in the preparations leading up to an American military operation in Iran.
Keeping the mullahs on tenterhooks
Whereas the White House does not intend to publish this request formally, it is not averse to any NATO- member government going public with a statement that it has sent officers to planning teams working at NATO headquarters in Brussels on preparations for a military strike against Iran.
This indirect publicity would serve the Obama administration in four ways:
1. Tehran would be made aware that the US president has taken another big step towards American military action against Iran.
2. The Iranians would understand they could be in for a confrontation not just with US forces but a coalition of Western allies.
3. It would turn the heat on Iran ahead of a new round of nuclear talks due to begin this month with the Six Powers (the five Permanent UN Security Council Members + Germany).
4. The knowledge that the US is preparing to destroy their nuclear installations – even though Washington was not seeking a full-scale war – would keep Iran’s rulers on tenterhooks for D-Day.
In the past week, some of the more influential US media have interpreted President Obama’s latest steps and military buildup opposite Iran as signifying he planned to respond to the widely-predicted failure of his Democratic party in the midterm elections of Nov. 3 by focusing on foreign policy.
A boost for Obama’s 2012 reelection race?
Some speculated that hammering Iran and its nuclear installations would give his prospects of reelection as president in 2012 a powerful shot in the arm.
The Washington Post carried a piece by David Broder on October 31 which said: “If Obama cannot spur that [economic] growth by 2012, he is unlikely to be reelected… Can Obama harness the forces that might spur new growth?… What are those forces?… One is the power of the business cycle… What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy. Here is where Obama is likely to prevail… He can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
“I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.”
Broder came in for scathing criticism for these comments from many parts of the American media. But DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s Washington sources report his conclusions were practical and based on his knowledge of trends current in the Oval Office in the White House