There's four or five lines of pretty unsubstantiated content in there relating to a "cyber-attack" that might be relevant for HN.<p>Besides the weird rehashing of "they're building nukes" propaganda, the linked articles
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-trumps-approval-pentagon-launched-cyber-strikes-against-iran/2019/06/22/250d3740-950d-11e9-b570-6416efdc0803_story.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-...</a>
and
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/us/politics/us-iran-cyber-attacks.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/us/politics/us-iran-cyber...</a>
seem much more informative in that regard.
There are a few things that are strange about this. Number 1 - it was weapons systems they attacked, so I'm going to assume you reach those through microwave somehow. If thats the case, simply storing your weapons in a faraday cage until you are ready to use them is a pretty effective countermeasure?<p>Secondly, why would you publicise you engaged in a bit of cyber warfare - particularly successful cyber warfare. This literally notifies the enemy to upgrade/fix/patch/take counter measures, solidifies their defenses, and provides a clear aggressor.<p>Amateur hour from the CISA... or perhaps someone needs a public win to justify another round of funding increases...<p>Oh look.. <a href="https://www.cyberscoop.com/house-bill-boost-cisa-funding-335-million/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cyberscoop.com/house-bill-boost-cisa-funding-335...</a><p>335 Million Dollars! Such a corrupt system.
Probably using a continuation of the Suter program:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suter_(computer_program)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suter_(computer_program)</a>
The part I don’t get is the “in retaliation for shooting down a drone”.<p>If the drone was operating over Iranian territory, Iran is well within their rights to shoot it down. What would the US do with an Iranian drone operating over US territory? Over sensitive military sites?
Publicizing a low level attack on a weapons system is a ham fisted attempt at ratcheting, and it will probably work. I think it’s fairly likely we end up in a war with Iran, since Bolton has pretty much said that’s what he wants.
On some level, you have to figure any country operating in an atmosphere of sustained, overt adversity would have long since divested themselves from any amount of trust placed in areas of technology that one might consider "cyber" oriented.
To europeans its quite strange how easily the US would go to war... I guess this is a product of big oil and weapon lobbying, because theyre the only ones that benefit from this
Joke's on the US: Iran has no need for its weapons systems. They have no enemies except the US, which prefers to wage economic war, aside from its "death from the sky" drones.<p>(No, Israel doesn't count. That's just a grudge.)
It's about darn time. Regardless of the whole "nuke" situation, Iran has been a thorn in the side of companies for years. Between them and North Korea, civilian operations are regularly crippled and data stolen. I even know a company that got ransomware twice, both times from the North Koreans (company paid the first time, so they went back after them). Most of the time, companies don't widely disclose this (except to affected parties), so you don't hear about it, but it's very much out there and widespread (according to the FBI agents involved in this case and what I have heard). China and Russia do it too.<p>The FBI classifies such things as acts of terror, yet we have done nothing to protect our own companies. If Iran wants to keep attacking our nation to compensate for lost oil money, it is about time we start crippling their infrastructure until they simply have no way to send a packet to the outside world.