this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
495 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59987 readers
2785 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carrolade 55 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Depends how its set up. So long as it's fully independent and disconnected from existing digital infrastructure it should be safer. It could be as simple as explosives hard-wired with a buried line running up into some bunker up in the mountains.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 7 months ago (2 children)

By remotely I don't think they meant a long RJ45 cable connected to nothing.

So this doesn't look like a setup that can be fully secure.

Could even be completely fake and just to dissuade China from invading.

[–] Carrolade 14 points 7 months ago

That would be clever.

[–] Agent641 1 points 6 months ago

A guy with an RC car remote, peering across the Taiwan Strait with benoculars

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Stuxnet would like to have a word

[–] Carrolade 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Note, I said safer, not completely safe. Even a hard line to a bunker simply needs someone to locate the line and activate it.

Completely safe does not and likely never will exist, as the history of human arms evolution should demonstrate.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Assuming it wasn't shielded and knew you where near by couldn't you just broadcast the code or what ever with enough power to cause the same effect?

[–] AdamEatsAss 6 points 7 months ago

That's what you have to do of you don't want the invaders to get the tech. If you brick the processors they still have the machines. I'm not sure what the secret sauce is in this case, but china has a reputation of reverse engineering things in spite of foreign laws. The best way to keep it from happening is to make sure they get no part of it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

So long as it’s fully independent and disconnected from existing digital infrastructure it should be safer.

It's a puzzle, because anything with too many safety features can be easily disarmed. But anything with too few can be prematurely detonated.

Imagine what happens to the Taiwanese economy if there's a Chinese feint or false alarm and the facility bricks itself. A massive economic downturn would not work to the benefit of an island so heavily reliant on foreign trade.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

state actors have hacked airgapped equipment before, an actual backdoor will be ripe for exploitation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

remember the stuxnet botnet, and how nobody knew what it was for?

turns out it was programmed to activate in the very specific conditions inside the iranian nuclear reactor facilities and sabotage it. the facility was airgapped but stuxnet was so ubiquitous in the country by then, someone just needed to bring the first usb stick in for it to be a pwn. or so goes the story.

iirc the us and israel admitted to doing it years later, it was somewhere in the obama era and they wanted to sabotage iran's nuclear program. the systems remained infected for years reporting bogus data and slightly messing with the parameters so it never worked well and their scientists remained stumped until the virus was discovered.

shows how vulnerable our systems really are to organizations with unlimited money.

[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yeah... and now the Iranians have Stuxnet, too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

i'd be surprised if stuff like it werent way more common today.

[–] thallamabond 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So? Those backdoors have been closed since 2010 (probably earlier). Also not too many people have an Iranian Nuclear program.

[–] masquenox 5 points 7 months ago

The experts don't share your optimism.

In the same report, Sean McGurk, a former cybersecurity official at the Department of Homeland Security noted that the Stuxnet source code could now be downloaded online and modified to be directed at new target systems. Speaking of the Stuxnet creators, he said, "They opened the box. They demonstrated the capability... It's not something that can be put back."

Dealing with Stuxnet has probably advanced Iranian cyberwarfare capablilites by several orders of magnitude that they wouldn't have otherwise. That's the problem with using this stuff as weaponry - they don't explode.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

disconnected from existing digital infrastructure

Oh come on.... this isn't just a scrap metal press.

[–] Carrolade 4 points 7 months ago

Sure. But a kill switch might warrant some additional investment. It's not like your other features.

Assuming the kill switch is a real kill switch, and not just casually shutting things down in a way where they can easily be turned back on.