Stuxnet was such an amazing event. The speculation at first, the quasi confirmation a little later based on certain items in the code. The dissection of it and the tech talks by Microsoft and others on its design and build... And then that it had a successor - and now it comes out that Israel and US squabbling over what team did what which allowed it to be exposed.
It is such an amazing cornerstone in the cyberpunk reality of where the world is heading.
If you haven't watched the tech talks on stuxnet and duqu, please do - super interesting.
>Pictures of then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the Natanz facility helped the experts obtain needed intelligence on the computers. The computers, their configuration and their rear connections can be seen clearly in the pictures. Eventually, these entry and exit points served as portals to implant the virus.
I doubt that this alone was all they needed. Probably once they had identified the vendors of the equipment, they retrieved the purchase orders from those vendors, either with or without the knowledge of said vendors.
> the secret formula for writing the code for the virus software
> these entry and exit points served as portals to implant the virus.
> the most deadly version of the virus
I don't know if this is a result of the journalist, or the film that is the source material, but that's way too many bad biological parallels to describe a computer virus.
what confuses me about the US-Israeli relationship is that the most of the times they work well but at times one is always sabatoging each other in a manner that makes you reconsider, is Israel and enemy or a friend to the United States? I don't think Japan would pull off shit like this.
It's like there's a four tier system to what defines a US Ally.
Platinum - Gets you exclusive access to black funds & latest weapons no other allies are getting. Discounted oil from Saudi too.
Gold - Gets you access to aids and credit line with the IMF. You get the top grade weapons that other allies wish they were getting haha.
Silver - Gets you access to some aids and political credit for your election periods in your country. Free defense of your country, we'll even pay half the cost of our stay.
Bronze - Gets honorable mention in speeches and aids but don't count on our diplomatic support. You are largely left on your own to defend your country. We'll sell you some of our refurbished weapons and overstocked weaponry at a discount or if you buy our bonds.
edit: why the downvotes? seems like any comment that seems to critcize US-Israel relationship on here are automatically downvoted to oblivion. As a Canadian, all of this is very confusing. A) Why in the fuck would the most powerful country succumb to a particular smaller country but nobody else B) Why in the fuck nobody is allowed to question the arrangement? C) Why are people who think Jesus will return in Israel (mental illness?) are allowed to make decisions on behalf of people who don't agree with it?
And to people who say both countries are acting in a way that maximizes their national interests, yet certain actions by certain country are seemingly kosher (no pun intended) while if another country in the similar position did the same actions, there would be severe punitive and a concerted diplomatic backlash and media smearing. All but one particular country seems to get a free golden pass on literally all aspects that influence United State's national interests.
The US gets less than what Israel gets out of the relationship. What was US's big reward for helping Israel? It incited attack from other anti-Israeli terrorists and continue to place the national security at risk just to further some geopolitical goals in some remote place that has nothing to do with the average American.
The emperor wears no clothes, and as a Canadian I just pointed out what I'm seeing. I have no stake in this argument or have mistrust or hatred for Israeli people and American peoples, but it's not hard to see the level of mistrust each countries populace has towards their own government's policy.
Alliances are about geopolitics as much as how much we like countries' behaviour. Israel is an invaluable intelligence partner in the War on Terror and a natural ally against Iran. They're also the closest thing to a liberal democracy in the Middle East.
As long as the US continues to gain more from its alliance with Israel than it loses, the alliance will endure. No matter how much individual leaders may loathe each other.
You would capitalize Apple to refer to the company, even though it has nothing to do with fruit. In the same way, the War on Terror isn't necessarily an actual war on terror/terrorism.
Not sure how this is true. What do you mean by "ally against Iran"? The US is Israel's ally against Iran, but what has the US against Iran if not for Israel? The entire point of contention between Iran and the US in today's world is Israel. Israel just expects us to fight for it.
I may be misinformed, but I believe the seed of the US' anti-Iran stance comes from Iran attempting to not allow exploitation of Iran by the British empire, our ally and mother, and then after, only because the country of Israel was born and we know their history with each other...
It's an empire-cock-blocking hate we have with Iran.
Israel was ruled by the British empire until 1948 but by 1956 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis) was friendly enough with Britain to side with them in a war. While I think your explanation is partially true, I think it is also an oversimplification. Why can some countries get over colonial interference, while others use it to justify everything they do?
This also begs the question what is Iran's main problem with Israel then? Israel wasn't involved in operation Ajax. Why is it the little Satan to America's great Satan?
Given their conduct in Syria, I find the "sympathy with the Palestinians" slightly hard to believe.
As opposed to our real allies in Europe, South Korea, and the persian gulf who do all of their fighting on their own and never expect us to do any fighting on their behalf???
America has interests and not friends. Israelis understand this. Similarly Israel has interests and not friends. They are interested in protecting their own interests. Even if it costs Americans for them to do so. So you can basically say Israelis learned how to play these games from Americans.
You can certainly trace it to Prussia/Germany and Bismarck. The "no permanent friends, only permanent interests" line people usually attribute to Kissinger originally came from Lord Palmerston in the 1800s.
But Israelis have bought our corruptible political system to the point where all our politicians fight each other to prove who is more of a "friend" to Israel. If the US where acting in its real best interest it would keep Israel at much more of an arm's length. In a way Israel is much more of a dangerous enemy to American democracy than Iran, Russia, China or any other country.
>If the US where acting in its real best interest it would keep Israel at much more of an arm's length. In a way Israel is much more of a dangerous enemy to American democracy than Iran, Russia, China or any other country.
This hardly matters to the most ardent Israel supporters in the USA: the sort that believe that propping up Israel is the key to realizing the Christian apocalypse mythos.
Or maybe people think that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the middle east and surrounded by nations and terrorist organisations that want to wipe it out.
What a laugh. A Palestinian in Hebron whose family has been there for thousands of years gets no vote, whereas a Jew from Brooklyn who just got off a plane and steals his land does get a vote in the Knesset. This is a democracy? How deluded do you think we all are?
The Palestinian in Hebron doesn't have a vote because the PLO -- after fighting, and losing, several explicit wars of genocide against Israel -- explicitly refuses to negotiate a settlement or accept a peace offer. If you're upset about that poor family in Hebron, you need to write to Ramallah, not Jerusalem.
> whereas a Jew from Brooklyn who just got off a plane and steals his land
Let's hear more details about your narrative where a perfidous Jew can just climb on an airplane today, fly to Israel, point at an arbitrary plot of land in the West Bank and take it away from its current owner.
Give me a break. It is not antisemetic to say that AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbys in DC. Or that people like Sheldon Adelson are central to the election process. I'm not saying it's the only special interest undermining our democracy, I'm saying it's a big one and heavily influenced by a foreign country. If it were a heavily influential China lobby everyone would be freaking out.
But you didn't say that AIPAC is powerful (it is) or people like Sheldon Adelson are influential (they are.) You said:
"But Israelis have bought our corruptible political system to the point where all our politicians fight each other to prove who is more of a "friend" to Israel. If the US where acting in its real best interest it would keep Israel at much more of an arm's length. In a way Israel is much more of a dangerous enemy to American democracy than Iran, Russia, China or any other country."
That's a lot more serious than dispassionately noting how one nation among many that has an influential lobby in the United States.
But one other point that is worth considering: American public opinion of Israel is generally around 60% positive, 30% neutral, and 10% negative (source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/poally...). Is it particularly shocking that politicians go where the votes are? No conspiracy theory required.
"Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts."
So... you are incredibly offended about how Israel spied on the United States, and it's fortunate that American spying on Israel revealed this terrible behavior? Or... what? Not sure what you're getting at, here; perhaps you should add a little context to your blind link quoting.
If only we acted that way. Our levels of support to Israel are disproportionate to the benefits we receive. For better or for worse we would in no way tolerate the Israeli level of diplomatic and political sabotage without such a strong pro-Israeli lobby. If it's a moral imperative, then fine, but I've never heard a convincing description of what we're actually getting from the Israelis to justify the rest of the relationship. Just "having a democracy in the Middle East" is not itself useful, especially when literally everyone in the neighborhood wants to kill them. If it weren't for the pro-Israeli lobby they'd be getting the Ukraine treatment, strong words of support, but otherwise they'd be on their own.
I think the US is a bigger ally to Israel than vice versa. But even allies spy on each other. The US certainly does it to Germany.
I think Israel's history and geo-political position makes them much more skiddish than other countries. A significant portion of their society was formed from holocaust survivors. And then it fought a series of wars against it's neighbors. A significance loss could be disastrous for them.
There is some reason for them to be suspicious of America. During The 1973 war, the US told them not to preemptively attack, which may have cost them dearly (it's not clear if Americas advice was the reason they didn't). The US considered not re-arming the Israeli's during that war when they needed supplies and weapons.
But they also have little to offer the United States. If a Warsaw/NATO war happened in the 1950-80s it would have been Europeans dying by the millions too. Israel is never going to a key ally to the US.
I think you misunderstand the relationship. One, there are civilians, extremely rich civilians who are sending more than a pretty penny to Israel. Two, the US government is essentially bribing the Israel government to stay put and not kill everyone around them. I believe most people vastly underestimate the military might of Israel. Did you know, for example, that Israel has unmanned ground vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardium essentially mini tanks already operational? They have main battle tanks which can intercept RPGs and even anti tank guided missiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Mk_IVm_Windbreaker . If Israel wanted to wreak havoc in the region, they certainly could. I was and still surprised they didn't grab a bit of Syria.
> I was and still surprised they didn't grab a bit of Syria.
Eh, there's no reason to be surprised. There is no strategic benefit to Israel in "grabbing" arbitrary chunks of Syria just because they happen to be undefended at the moment. It is in an excellent position right now to not just defend itself against any attacks from Syria but indeed deter them, and military overextension would weaken that.
Grabbing a bit of Syria would hardly have been worth the propaganda disaster though. The world wouldn't have reacted very favorably... particularly the Muslim world.
And yes, Israel has some extremely good technology. But they also have some pretty fierce enemies. See their incursion into Southern Lebanon a few years back for instance. They also don't have that large of a population. It probably is in their best interest they aren't seen as expansionist.... for the moment at least.
Circumstances may change and at that time it may be in Israel's best interest to appear expansionist. But for now and for the foreseeable future, it will probably help keep the peace if they aren't.
Well, there would be generally less tensions with many other countries acting in an expansionist manner than with Israel doing so.
Given the history short (modern) history of Israel and the religious animosity of the neighbors etc. it would be certain to inflame more hostility internationally than Rawanda taking a piece of Burndi for instance. But I'm sure you are already aware of all this. I went back and read your previous posts. It seems you may be looking for an anti-Semite under every rock. Well... next rock. I'm just pointing out practical reality. I don't have an axe to grind with Israel existing.
I won't deny that I'm fairly sensitive on the matter, given that anti-Semitism is not just acceptable but a major electoral winner these days -- as long as one applies a coat of "anti-Zionist" paint on top, one is good to go with the vilest conspiracy theories and blood libels, as we've seen right here in this comments section.
What made me raise an eyebrow was the bit about how if things changed, it might be in Israel's interests to be expansionist. That's obviously true, one could say that about any country, of course, but... well, in the end that's probably on me being oversensitive, and it was uncalled for to go after it.
No worries. I actually think it might be better for the locals if (a more enlightened and less hard-line) Israel governed a bit more of the Mideast but this is a political impossibility right now and certainly better left unsaid. I should have left that bit off... it didn't have anywhere to go but towards irritating somebody. I'll take blame on that.
That theory doesn't make much sense. If the policy is for preventing Israel from starting wars we wouldn't be bribing them with billions of dollars worth of weapons.
Conventional weapons. While Israel doesn't officially have nuclear weapons, it's a pretty open secret that they have a few dozen. By allowing Israel to posture with conventional weapons, the US is keeping Israel from going nuclear to solve problems. A nuclear strike in that region would be...problematic to say the least.
Seems like the conventional policy when faced with a militaristic regime hell bent on using nuclear weapons is to ostracize them in the international community and impose severe sanctions. Not give them as much advanced weaponry as possible.
"militaristic regime hell bent on using nuclear weapons"
If Israel was "hell bent on using nuclear weapons" why haven't they used their nuclear weapons? You are so choked with hatred you can't even assemble a consistent argument. You need to step back and think about things for a while. Ask yourself why you hate so much, and who put this poison in your head, and why they did it.
Their military is very effective in it's own way, but this comes at a cost - since the country is so small, a large-scale deployment means stripping much of the civilian economy bare of workers. They've got a good system going for short-term large-scale deployments to stop any of the large armies that their neighbors can more easily field, but they can't afford to keep an army of that size in the field for more than something like a month or two. Large-scale occupation is logistically out of the question, before strategic and political considerations are even taken into account.
They don't really have much to gain from trying to grab parts of Syria - they already have just the right amount of territory in the area to have very defensible borders. Taking more would give them territory much more vulnerable to attack, pretty much nothing in the way of natural resources, and most likely a population somewhere between neutral and hostile to manage. Not to mention that it would surely play rather poorly in the Arab world and the greater diplomatic community. Israel has done relatively well to conspicuously have no involvement in any of the Arab Spring rebellions.
I believe most people vastly underestimate the military might of Israel.
Certainly Israel has been very formidable against weak armies such as those of Egypt. However, I don't think Israel's brief 2006 war against Hezbollah went all that well. Very little achieved at considerable cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
My impression was that the average Israeli soldier involved was like: "fuck this, what the fuck am I fighting for?" Shades of Vietnam!
The Israeli army of 2016 is not at all the same as the armies that fought in 1967 and 1973. But I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff, so I'd welcome corrections.
Every indication is that their army was and is quite formidable in a conventional fight. Particularly against relatively poorly-led and organized but large and well-equipped armies like the arab armies of the 60s-70s. Counter-insurgency is a whole different ballgame, though, as many nations have discovered the hard way. Israel can almost sorta kinda do it well sometimes.
It's worth noting that Hezbollah is quite terrible at counter-insurgency too, and they know it, which is why they've never made any attempt to take control of the rest of Lebanon outside the Shia area they control in the south.
That article also says the following, indicating that the propagation of this particular mistranslation was even done by Iran itself.
> But the story doesn’t end there. Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that Iranian government entities began to erect billboards and signs with the “wipe off” phrase in English. Joshua Teitelbaum of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs compiled an interesting collection of photographs of these banners, such as one on the building that houses reserve military forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world,” the sign reads in English."
"It's like there's a four tier system to what defines a US Ally."
The editor of Al-Ahram in Cairo, who was very close to the government, once wrote on that subject back in the Cold War days. He said that the USSR had a quite explicit three-tier system, and it was very hard for a country to change tiers. Tier I countries got the Bolshoi ballet on tour, and when mid-level ministers called Moscow, the call back was from a higher level minister. Tier II countries got the Leningrad ballet, and callbacks from an equal level minister. Tier III countries didn't get tours and got callbacks from some low-level staffer.
On Israel as an ally of the US: The US and Israel do not have a mutual defense treaty. The US has a treaty obligation to defend NATO countries, most of South America, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines.[2] But not Israel. The NATO connection is particularly strong; the NATO commander (a job which rotates amongst the NATO countries) can deploy troops from the member nations. Israel has a "security cooperation" treaty, but it doesn't obligate the US to support Israel militarily if they get into a war. A few years ago, Israel was pushing for war with Iran, but the US made it clear that Israel was on their own if they started a war with Iran.[3]
when did america become israels bitch? our troops are out there getting blown up and these israeli jews and sitting at home making their kids tech billionaires? all these young kids being brainwashed into thinking a communist jew like sanders is good for the country when he has his hidden agenda with israel. why is the us helping the israelis when the jews in america are determining the course of the US life? corrupting american culture with their bullshit ass rap music made by drake? running every media outlet and late night talk show hosts to afraid to say anything about jews? Jews will take their snake hands and bite you but will cry out in pain themselves.
Hate to turn this into a political thread when there is so much info about software but....
The sheer arrogance with with Israel operates is just something else. They seem to to believe that no action they take will ever be questioned or lead to any blowback.
The almost total control of US Foreign policy that they have now makes me think that the Iran deal being operationalized was nothing sort of a coup for Pres. Obama.
If I were a conspiracy nut, I would be looking very closely at how those two US naval boats drifted that close to an Iranian base on the eve of the agreement coming into force.
Not all countries would be included there. The US? Russia? North Korea? Sure. Finland? Iceland? Not so much.
There is something to be said about a country's foreign policy and how 'arrogant' it is. A country can have a solid foreign policy (read: not be a pushover) and still not act like a giant bully.
Someone else has pointed this out elsewhere but it's a bit odd to compare israel to scandanavian countries rather than the middle eastern countries that surround it.
So let's ask the same question again: is Israel's behavior arrogant?
Possibly, but not really when compared to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria or Qatar
"They seem to to believe that no action they take will ever be questioned or lead to any blowback" - That's not true. Like any country Israel wights the pros and cons of any decision. Some work in their favor some don't. If you think Israel doesn't taken into account the repercussions to it's actions you are gravely mistaken.
I agree with you that Israel tries and succeeds in influencing US Foreign policy, why wouldn't any country do that if it works in their favor? Why is Israel being criticized of this when any other country including the UK, France, Germany, Iran, Egypt are doing the same?
> Why is Israel being criticized of this when any other country including the UK, France, Germany, Iran, Egypt are doing the same?
Because Israel could not do five percent of the things they are doing without the massive amount of military and financial welfare and protection they receive from the USA. The other countries you list do not have that luxury to nearly the same extent.
Massive amount? US foreign aid to Israel is about at most 3% of Israel yearly budget. Most of it Israel has to spend in a specific defined way, mostly buying from US companies. Some go to R&D which are joined operations with the US.
Don't forget that Egypt and Jordan get foreign Aid, 1.5B$ while Israel gets 3B$.
I don't see any comments on why US should stop it.
UK, France, Germany are in NATO which gives them much more luxury to do what they want.
Iran developed a Nuclear program, is funding and assisting terror organization which killed thousands of civilians, not to mention in details what's going on in Syria right now.
> Don't forget that Egypt and Jordan get foreign Aid, 1.5B$ while Israel gets 3B$
What? Egypt got no "foreign aid" until some post-Nasserite forces in Egypt got together and decided to kow-tow to Israel and the US during the Camp David accords. For Jordan it is pretty much the same thing, from the attacks on Black September on.
The politicians running these countries were bought off to play nice with Israel. This is more or less openly stated in journals like Foreign Affairs. The money to Egypt and Jordan is money being given indirectly to Israel.
"until some post-Nasserite forces in Egypt got together and decided to kow-tow to Israel and the US during the Camp David accords"
Youre describing the camp david accord as if some jewish cabal took control of the administration of egypt. Egypt simply realized life would be better if it didn't go to war with a formidable enemy every 5 years (that is literally the average from 1948-Yom Kippur War in 1973), and it left the soviet orbit and aligned itself more the US.
That's just not true. Israel's annual budget is $88 billion. Even if American aid was just tossed in with no strings attached, as opposed to all the indirect-subsidy-for-American-defense-corporations requirements, it's around five and a half percent of that amount.
why would they expect blow back? They literally bombed our naval vessel (the Liberty, IIRC) in the Mediterranean in the 70s, and there were zero consequences. For a bombing. Why would releasing a software project early cause anything bad to happen?
Israel operates with utter disregard for the US, and has done pretty well for itself by doing so.
It's hard to fault them for continuing their pattern of behavior.
This is a really bizzare statement. Of course, if you compare Israel to Iceland, as someone did in another comment, the difderence in behavior is noticeable. But do you consider the worlds these two countries are living in? Israel gets critisized for 1/10 of what all the surrounding countries commit without any international outlash. It have been at war since its creation — with the countries not across the world, but right at the border. Most of Israel's population comes from people who were expelled from these neighboring countries mere 70 years ago. So yeah, to survive in the environment where people are constantly trying to kill you — and just "you" as a country, but you personally, because of your ethnicity — you have to grow some arrogance.
>They seem to to believe that no action they take will ever be questioned or lead to any blowback
Israel did not and never will colonize Palestine "properly" like the British Empire did. They are either afraid of the blowback or surprisingly restrained.
> The almost total control of US Foreign policy ...
Which US foreign policy decisions in the past 10 years were "controlled" by Israel? Sanctions on Russia? Missile defence system in Europe? North Korea? Relations with China? War on Terror? Libya campaign? US non-response to the "Arab spring"? Campaign in Syria? Drone strikes in Pakistan? Relations with Latin America? War on Drugs? Spying on Angela Merkel?
Literally nothing of what the US did in the last decade had anything to do with Israel. Even when it comes to Iran - which Israeli leaders considered to be an existential threat - Israel completely failed to influence the US foreign policy.
when did america become israels bitch? our troops are out there getting blown up and these israeli jews and sitting at home making their kids tech billionaires? all these young kids being brainwashed into thinking a communist jew like sanders is good for the country when he has his hidden agenda with israel. why is the us helping the israelis when the jews in america are determining the course of the US life? corrupting american culture with their bullshit ass rap music made by drake? running every media outlet and late night talk show hosts to afraid to say anything about jews? Jews will take their snake hands and bite you but will cry out in pain themselves.
edit no offense to paul graham
> In this way, after the strongest version of the virus was implanted in order to increase the force of the damage to the centrifuges at Natanz, the virus .... began to "jump from computer to computer"
I don't see how one follows from the other. One talks about the virus causing additional damage to centrifuges rather than minor damage.
The other is about increased infectiousness.
They are two different things and they are just tied together as if there is some relationship between them.
This article is almost completely devoid of any evidence, or even a plausible logical explanation/motivation.
Perhaps the additional damage is caused by increased infectiousness since the virus would be spread through more diverse intermediaries on its way to various centrifuge systems?
>This article is almost completely devoid of any evidence, or even a plausible logical explanation/motivation.
Well this article is reporting on what is stated in a forthcoming movie, not performing an investigation
> Perhaps the additional damage is caused by increased infectiousness since the virus would be spread through more diverse intermediaries on its way to various centrifuge systems?
And there it is. Fingerprinting the variety of recipients takes time and effort, as well as producing viable payloads to assert control over them.
Remember that while Israel is a first world country, it's tiny. It's population is 8.4 million, 1/40th of the U.S. and about the size of New York City proper (not suburban, which is ~20 million). Probably the Israeli government does not have the same level of talent and other resources that the U.S. government does. Imagine if the NSA was staffed only with residents of NYC, for example.
(However, 3 of 8 US Supreme Court Justices are from NYC, and Alito and Scalia are/were from NJ.)
This is a bit offset by their large proportional tech sector and compulsory service. The NSA (and gov tech in general) would be a hell of a lot better if everyone had to do a year or two of government service.
Clarification: not to imply that the NSA is bad at their job currently, but if they could borrow two years off of every technical person in the country I can't see how that could hurt.
Yes, because there would be a bigger pool to choose from. For the same reason that bigger schools have better sports teams: More Athletic types... Having a bigger pool of candidates means you have more chance to get specific with your choices.
Personally, I think those types of services (Military, FBI, etc) should be volunteer... last thing you want is your back being guarded or secrets been covered by someone who doesn't agree with or want to be there.
Definitely agree on the logic around a negative impact of a draft based service. I was thinking more along the lines of the Swiss model where you can go be a teacher or a ski patrolman and it'll still count rather than a Korea/Vietnam style thing.
That's a common (and reasonable) argument, but the counter is that then such organizations will be staffed with "true believers" who question neither specific orders nor (especially) overall policies. Draftees are more likely to blow the whistle.
In the sense that most people move there as part of being hired, yes. The though experiment is to consider the result of restricting recruiting for NSA staff to only NYC/Michigan.
HN is not a magical land where people do not leave moronic comments. Between users flagging comments and dang a lot of comments get killed. If you would like to see what HN would look like without some level of moderation turn on show-dead in your preferences. The anti-semetic idiots will be at the bottom of the page.
There are not any because the masters delete them. And "any" means any comment that is critical against Israel and is immediately flagged as "anti-semitic" by the watchdogs/lapdogs. What a discrace.
Comments critical of Israel are one thing (plenty of those in this thread), anti-semitic slurs are another. This is hardly a hard call. Also the 'masters' here are the users flagging the latter, quite rightly.
So I guess when you say that Israel occupies territories illegally according to UN while exercising extreme force prohibiting Palestians of their right to live, is considered an "anti-semitic" comment. No, you can't stand criticism while your being full of smugness and self-righteousness. Am I being antisemitic when I say that 25% of the Israel defence budget is paid by the Americans?. Do you follow Congress rulings that support that fact? Why should there be homeless americans when there is so much money used to support Israel?. Who decides that? You do? You and the other people flagging me because you do not want the truth to be told.
We've banned those accounts. It's better to flag such comments than to respond to them.
In case anyone is wondering, the way to flag a comment (if you have more than 30 karma) is by clicking on its timestamp to go to its page, then clicking 'flag' at the top.
>> the secret formula... fell into the hands of Russia and Iran
>> increasingly stronger versions of the virus
>> the most deadly version of the virus
Is anyone else not wild about the manner in which "cyber" articles get written? I feel like non-technical readers are left mildly concerned that they're going to come down with a case of the stuxnet and die, or that now that Russia and Iran have a copy of stuxnet we're all doomed.
Most of the language regarding the virus seemed more appropriate for an actual bioweapon. It'd be nice if there were a bit more focus on educating the public than scaring them.
MOst of the quotes made sense to me:
>> “changed the code” (the scare quotes bit)
Might not be scare quotes but a direct quotation
>> to invent a “vaccine”
This is pretty obvious - an antivirus
>> the secret formula... fell into the hands of Russia and Iran
They got a way to get the virus' signature, as well as copies to reverse-engineer
>> increasingly stronger versions of the virus
>> the most deadly version of the virus
Might refer to virulence or how quickly the effects were ramped up. The most effective viruses are not the most transmissible (burn themselves out and/or are quickly noticed)
> now that Russia and Iran have a copy of stuxnet we're all doomed
not doomed per se, but it would probably be better for the average american if this hadn't happened. The worst thing about this, IMO, is that it set a very public precedent on the use of 'cyber-weaponry', costing the US moral high-ground
With the exception of me missing that they were not scare quotes but rather direct quotes, I understood all of the referenced text. I just wanted to point out that the way it is written is not the best way to help inform the general public about cybersabotage and espionage campaigns. While using such language directed towards an expert crowd for giggles doesn't do any harm it contributes to the general atmosphere of panic to tell a general audience that Russia and Iran now have "the secret formula for the most deadly version of the virus". My parents don't know for sure that that virus won't kill you, computers are very scary for them, they might think stuxnet is in their car trying to kill them now.
It wasn't scare quotes. It was an actual quote "US Vice President Joe Biden was quoted in the film as saying in a meeting that the Israelis 'changed the code' of the deadly virus’s software."
It's interesting reading that doc in light of this news, as Langer notes that in 2009 the attack vector changed significantly, from a stealthy, bespoke, pressure-oriented attack, to a more vicious but easier to identify rotor-speed attack (the one we've all heard of), and also increased its infectivity by self-propagating.
> "Whatever the effect of the overpressure attack was, the attackers decided to try something different in 2009.
That may have been motivated by the fact that the overpressure attack was lethal just by accident, that it
didn’t achieve anything, or – that somebody simply decided to check out something new and fresh."
> "Summing up, the differences between the two Stuxnet variants discussed here are striking. In the newer
version, the attackers became less concerned about being detected. It seems a stretch to say that they wanted
to be discovered, but they were certainly pushing the envelope and accepting the risk."
> "The dramatic differences between both versions point to changing priorities that will most likely have been
accompanied by a change in stakeholders. "
I wonder if that's when the Israelis got involved?
Also, this is shockingly readable for the depth and subject matter!
I find it hard to believe that top secret information like this would be confirmed by top US officials.
Why declassify this information? what possible outcome were they hoping to achieve?
It's obviously a smear campaign against Israel, i'd take it with a grain of salt.
I was just wondering. Why on earth would a dubious post from an Israeli newspaper end up on hacker news? Is the article more important than the fact the Israel occupies territories illegally neglecting UN resolutions, pushing out Palestians and using humuliating tactics as well doing immense practice shootings at young palestinians protecting their home( before it is brought down). What angers me though, is that international community does not say anything about the jihandis getting treated in Israel when they get shot doing their "mercenary services" in Syria. One more thing: while there are americans dying out in the street being homeless, american goverment supplies fincancial aid to Israel that covers up to its 25% of its budget!
In any large organization you'll see instances of departments clashing over projects, managers going over each others' heads and bureaucratic turf wars. I'm sure these disputes are at least as common inside the NSA, or between different branches of US intelligence, as they are between the US and its allies.
The difference here is that in an international setting, our national ego comes into play and suddenly it's all about the Israeli lobby or some deep geopolitical interests, when it could just as easily be caused by a SW bug or an overzealous midlevel manager.
Maybe there is a place for a broader discussion about supplying arms to Israel, but I don't think this case is a good example. Looks more like Israel and the US collaborated very closely, on mostly equal terms, to achieve some impressive technological breakthroughs.
If anything, this is a testament to how technology and international cooperation can provide a safe and efficient alternative to unilateral use of of force.
If the worst side-effect of all of our covert and overt operations was leaking some Zero Days, the world would be a much safer place.
I guess I'm ok with Stuxnet. What I am most decidedly not OK with is the assassination of Iranian scientists. Iran has a right to be upset... it's only a wonder they aren't more upset.
It's sad how quickly a comment section on a story about Israel fills up with conspiracy theories about perfidous Zionists owning the US government, even on a normally more rational place like HN. It feels like this is the Guardian or something. Maybe we need to take a hard look at ourselves here.
138 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 143 ms ] threadIt is such an amazing cornerstone in the cyberpunk reality of where the world is heading.
If you haven't watched the tech talks on stuxnet and duqu, please do - super interesting.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rOwMW6agpTI
https://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_2...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P_nOg4Os6qg
If you or someone else has some recommendations on which ones are worth watching, please do let us know.
I doubt that this alone was all they needed. Probably once they had identified the vendors of the equipment, they retrieved the purchase orders from those vendors, either with or without the knowledge of said vendors.
> a “vaccine” for their computers
> the secret formula for writing the code for the virus software
> these entry and exit points served as portals to implant the virus.
> the most deadly version of the virus
I don't know if this is a result of the journalist, or the film that is the source material, but that's way too many bad biological parallels to describe a computer virus.
It's like there's a four tier system to what defines a US Ally.
Platinum - Gets you exclusive access to black funds & latest weapons no other allies are getting. Discounted oil from Saudi too.
Gold - Gets you access to aids and credit line with the IMF. You get the top grade weapons that other allies wish they were getting haha.
Silver - Gets you access to some aids and political credit for your election periods in your country. Free defense of your country, we'll even pay half the cost of our stay.
Bronze - Gets honorable mention in speeches and aids but don't count on our diplomatic support. You are largely left on your own to defend your country. We'll sell you some of our refurbished weapons and overstocked weaponry at a discount or if you buy our bonds.
edit: why the downvotes? seems like any comment that seems to critcize US-Israel relationship on here are automatically downvoted to oblivion. As a Canadian, all of this is very confusing. A) Why in the fuck would the most powerful country succumb to a particular smaller country but nobody else B) Why in the fuck nobody is allowed to question the arrangement? C) Why are people who think Jesus will return in Israel (mental illness?) are allowed to make decisions on behalf of people who don't agree with it?
And to people who say both countries are acting in a way that maximizes their national interests, yet certain actions by certain country are seemingly kosher (no pun intended) while if another country in the similar position did the same actions, there would be severe punitive and a concerted diplomatic backlash and media smearing. All but one particular country seems to get a free golden pass on literally all aspects that influence United State's national interests.
The US gets less than what Israel gets out of the relationship. What was US's big reward for helping Israel? It incited attack from other anti-Israeli terrorists and continue to place the national security at risk just to further some geopolitical goals in some remote place that has nothing to do with the average American.
The emperor wears no clothes, and as a Canadian I just pointed out what I'm seeing. I have no stake in this argument or have mistrust or hatred for Israeli people and American peoples, but it's not hard to see the level of mistrust each countries populace has towards their own government's policy.
As long as the US continues to gain more from its alliance with Israel than it loses, the alliance will endure. No matter how much individual leaders may loathe each other.
It's an empire-cock-blocking hate we have with Iran.
This also begs the question what is Iran's main problem with Israel then? Israel wasn't involved in operation Ajax. Why is it the little Satan to America's great Satan?
Given their conduct in Syria, I find the "sympathy with the Palestinians" slightly hard to believe.
> but what has the US against Iran if not for Israel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bom...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
https://www.rt.com/news/266812-iran-arms-taliban-isis/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/war-zones/weapons-prove...
> Israel just expects us to fight for it.
As opposed to our real allies in Europe, South Korea, and the persian gulf who do all of their fighting on their own and never expect us to do any fighting on their behalf???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_ins...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war
>inb4 you claim the iraq war (which removed the biggest threat to Israel's arch-rival, Iran) was in Israel's interests
Creating a throwaway account so you can break HN's rules with impunity in a politically inflammatory thread is not ok.
Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all, regardless of how strongly you feel about an issue.
I think you can probably trace such realpolitik and statecraft back to Mesopotamia and beyond.
This hardly matters to the most ardent Israel supporters in the USA: the sort that believe that propping up Israel is the key to realizing the Christian apocalypse mythos.
What a laugh. A Palestinian in Hebron whose family has been there for thousands of years gets no vote, whereas a Jew from Brooklyn who just got off a plane and steals his land does get a vote in the Knesset. This is a democracy? How deluded do you think we all are?
> whereas a Jew from Brooklyn who just got off a plane and steals his land
Let's hear more details about your narrative where a perfidous Jew can just climb on an airplane today, fly to Israel, point at an arbitrary plot of land in the West Bank and take it away from its current owner.
This isn't Stormfront, or a British newspaper. Please take your Zionist conspiracy theories elsewhere.
"But Israelis have bought our corruptible political system to the point where all our politicians fight each other to prove who is more of a "friend" to Israel. If the US where acting in its real best interest it would keep Israel at much more of an arm's length. In a way Israel is much more of a dangerous enemy to American democracy than Iran, Russia, China or any other country."
That's a lot more serious than dispassionately noting how one nation among many that has an influential lobby in the United States.
But one other point that is worth considering: American public opinion of Israel is generally around 60% positive, 30% neutral, and 10% negative (source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/poally...). Is it particularly shocking that politicians go where the votes are? No conspiracy theory required.
"Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts."
If only we acted that way. Our levels of support to Israel are disproportionate to the benefits we receive. For better or for worse we would in no way tolerate the Israeli level of diplomatic and political sabotage without such a strong pro-Israeli lobby. If it's a moral imperative, then fine, but I've never heard a convincing description of what we're actually getting from the Israelis to justify the rest of the relationship. Just "having a democracy in the Middle East" is not itself useful, especially when literally everyone in the neighborhood wants to kill them. If it weren't for the pro-Israeli lobby they'd be getting the Ukraine treatment, strong words of support, but otherwise they'd be on their own.
The word you're looking for is aid. People die of aids.
I think Israel's history and geo-political position makes them much more skiddish than other countries. A significant portion of their society was formed from holocaust survivors. And then it fought a series of wars against it's neighbors. A significance loss could be disastrous for them.
There is some reason for them to be suspicious of America. During The 1973 war, the US told them not to preemptively attack, which may have cost them dearly (it's not clear if Americas advice was the reason they didn't). The US considered not re-arming the Israeli's during that war when they needed supplies and weapons.
But they also have little to offer the United States. If a Warsaw/NATO war happened in the 1950-80s it would have been Europeans dying by the millions too. Israel is never going to a key ally to the US.
Eh, there's no reason to be surprised. There is no strategic benefit to Israel in "grabbing" arbitrary chunks of Syria just because they happen to be undefended at the moment. It is in an excellent position right now to not just defend itself against any attacks from Syria but indeed deter them, and military overextension would weaken that.
And yes, Israel has some extremely good technology. But they also have some pretty fierce enemies. See their incursion into Southern Lebanon a few years back for instance. They also don't have that large of a population. It probably is in their best interest they aren't seen as expansionist.... for the moment at least.
Given the history short (modern) history of Israel and the religious animosity of the neighbors etc. it would be certain to inflame more hostility internationally than Rawanda taking a piece of Burndi for instance. But I'm sure you are already aware of all this. I went back and read your previous posts. It seems you may be looking for an anti-Semite under every rock. Well... next rock. I'm just pointing out practical reality. I don't have an axe to grind with Israel existing.
What made me raise an eyebrow was the bit about how if things changed, it might be in Israel's interests to be expansionist. That's obviously true, one could say that about any country, of course, but... well, in the end that's probably on me being oversensitive, and it was uncalled for to go after it.
If Israel was "hell bent on using nuclear weapons" why haven't they used their nuclear weapons? You are so choked with hatred you can't even assemble a consistent argument. You need to step back and think about things for a while. Ask yourself why you hate so much, and who put this poison in your head, and why they did it.
They don't really have much to gain from trying to grab parts of Syria - they already have just the right amount of territory in the area to have very defensible borders. Taking more would give them territory much more vulnerable to attack, pretty much nothing in the way of natural resources, and most likely a population somewhere between neutral and hostile to manage. Not to mention that it would surely play rather poorly in the Arab world and the greater diplomatic community. Israel has done relatively well to conspicuously have no involvement in any of the Arab Spring rebellions.
Certainly Israel has been very formidable against weak armies such as those of Egypt. However, I don't think Israel's brief 2006 war against Hezbollah went all that well. Very little achieved at considerable cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
My impression was that the average Israeli soldier involved was like: "fuck this, what the fuck am I fighting for?" Shades of Vietnam!
The Israeli army of 2016 is not at all the same as the armies that fought in 1967 and 1973. But I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff, so I'd welcome corrections.
It's worth noting that Hezbollah is quite terrible at counter-insurgency too, and they know it, which is why they've never made any attempt to take control of the rest of Lebanon outside the Shia area they control in the south.
That's like saying having a hamster is an unfair relationship because the hamster gets a lot more out of it than you do.
The US is not threatened by Iran. At all.
Israel is threatened by Iran and Iran's leaders have said they would wipe Israel off the map.
For Israel, there was probably a greater sense of urgency than the level of patience that we were willing to use.
This was not said, it's just Zionist propaganda. Even the Washington Post says so ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-a... ).
The fact that this lie is repeated over and over shows you how thoroughly Zionist propaganda has propagated through the US media.
> But the story doesn’t end there. Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that Iranian government entities began to erect billboards and signs with the “wipe off” phrase in English. Joshua Teitelbaum of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs compiled an interesting collection of photographs of these banners, such as one on the building that houses reserve military forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world,” the sign reads in English."
The editor of Al-Ahram in Cairo, who was very close to the government, once wrote on that subject back in the Cold War days. He said that the USSR had a quite explicit three-tier system, and it was very hard for a country to change tiers. Tier I countries got the Bolshoi ballet on tour, and when mid-level ministers called Moscow, the call back was from a higher level minister. Tier II countries got the Leningrad ballet, and callbacks from an equal level minister. Tier III countries didn't get tours and got callbacks from some low-level staffer.
On Israel as an ally of the US: The US and Israel do not have a mutual defense treaty. The US has a treaty obligation to defend NATO countries, most of South America, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines.[2] But not Israel. The NATO connection is particularly strong; the NATO commander (a job which rotates amongst the NATO countries) can deploy troops from the member nations. Israel has a "security cooperation" treaty, but it doesn't obligate the US to support Israel militarily if they get into a war. A few years ago, Israel was pushing for war with Iran, but the US made it clear that Israel was on their own if they started a war with Iran.[3]
[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/0... [2] http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ [3] http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/20/the-real-cr...
edit no offense to paul graham
The sheer arrogance with with Israel operates is just something else. They seem to to believe that no action they take will ever be questioned or lead to any blowback.
The almost total control of US Foreign policy that they have now makes me think that the Iran deal being operationalized was nothing sort of a coup for Pres. Obama.
If I were a conspiracy nut, I would be looking very closely at how those two US naval boats drifted that close to an Iranian base on the eve of the agreement coming into force.
There is something to be said about a country's foreign policy and how 'arrogant' it is. A country can have a solid foreign policy (read: not be a pushover) and still not act like a giant bully.
So let's ask the same question again: is Israel's behavior arrogant? Possibly, but not really when compared to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria or Qatar
Because Israel could not do five percent of the things they are doing without the massive amount of military and financial welfare and protection they receive from the USA. The other countries you list do not have that luxury to nearly the same extent.
What? Egypt got no "foreign aid" until some post-Nasserite forces in Egypt got together and decided to kow-tow to Israel and the US during the Camp David accords. For Jordan it is pretty much the same thing, from the attacks on Black September on.
The politicians running these countries were bought off to play nice with Israel. This is more or less openly stated in journals like Foreign Affairs. The money to Egypt and Jordan is money being given indirectly to Israel.
>No foreign aid http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-wit... and it was even offered during your hero Nasser's regime
I agree with you they were bought off, but was it better for them to be at a constant war with Israel?
> The money to Egypt and Jordan is money being given indirectly to Israel I'd very much would like an explanation on this.
Israel operates with utter disregard for the US, and has done pretty well for itself by doing so.
It's hard to fault them for continuing their pattern of behavior.
Israel did not and never will colonize Palestine "properly" like the British Empire did. They are either afraid of the blowback or surprisingly restrained.
Which US foreign policy decisions in the past 10 years were "controlled" by Israel? Sanctions on Russia? Missile defence system in Europe? North Korea? Relations with China? War on Terror? Libya campaign? US non-response to the "Arab spring"? Campaign in Syria? Drone strikes in Pakistan? Relations with Latin America? War on Drugs? Spying on Angela Merkel?
Literally nothing of what the US did in the last decade had anything to do with Israel. Even when it comes to Iran - which Israeli leaders considered to be an existential threat - Israel completely failed to influence the US foreign policy.
I don't see how one follows from the other. One talks about the virus causing additional damage to centrifuges rather than minor damage.
The other is about increased infectiousness.
They are two different things and they are just tied together as if there is some relationship between them.
This article is almost completely devoid of any evidence, or even a plausible logical explanation/motivation.
Perhaps the additional damage is caused by increased infectiousness since the virus would be spread through more diverse intermediaries on its way to various centrifuge systems?
>This article is almost completely devoid of any evidence, or even a plausible logical explanation/motivation.
Well this article is reporting on what is stated in a forthcoming movie, not performing an investigation
And there it is. Fingerprinting the variety of recipients takes time and effort, as well as producing viable payloads to assert control over them.
(However, 3 of 8 US Supreme Court Justices are from NYC, and Alito and Scalia are/were from NJ.)
Clarification: not to imply that the NSA is bad at their job currently, but if they could borrow two years off of every technical person in the country I can't see how that could hurt.
Yes, because there would be a bigger pool to choose from. For the same reason that bigger schools have better sports teams: More Athletic types... Having a bigger pool of candidates means you have more chance to get specific with your choices.
No, because then you would be using the "Draft". There is a reason the US moved away from it in after Vietnam and went to an "All Volunteer" force. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Sta... )
Personally, I think those types of services (Military, FBI, etc) should be volunteer... last thing you want is your back being guarded or secrets been covered by someone who doesn't agree with or want to be there.
I'd bet their tech-sector-knowledge population is higher than Manhattan, by ratio.
Bad analogy. Israel aggressively imports tech/engineering/science talent from the global Jewish diaspora.
The NSA staffed only with residents of NYC would probably look very different from the NSA staffed only by residents of the state of Michigan.
This is just bad.
Trust me I have @dang all over me when I make poor/emotional comments, but this is just ignorant.
Nobody cares that the Israelis are Jews, we care when they (and any other homo Sapiens) act like assholes.
So this is not a Jewish issue, per se, it's an asshole issue, let's be clear about that.
You need to likely turn on "see dead links" in your profile to see them.
Thanks @Dang
In case anyone is wondering, the way to flag a comment (if you have more than 30 karma) is by clicking on its timestamp to go to its page, then clicking 'flag' at the top.
>> “changed the code” (the scare quotes bit)
>> to invent a “vaccine”
>> the secret formula... fell into the hands of Russia and Iran
>> increasingly stronger versions of the virus
>> the most deadly version of the virus
Is anyone else not wild about the manner in which "cyber" articles get written? I feel like non-technical readers are left mildly concerned that they're going to come down with a case of the stuxnet and die, or that now that Russia and Iran have a copy of stuxnet we're all doomed.
Most of the language regarding the virus seemed more appropriate for an actual bioweapon. It'd be nice if there were a bit more focus on educating the public than scaring them.
Might not be scare quotes but a direct quotation
>> to invent a “vaccine”
This is pretty obvious - an antivirus
>> the secret formula... fell into the hands of Russia and Iran
They got a way to get the virus' signature, as well as copies to reverse-engineer
>> increasingly stronger versions of the virus
>> the most deadly version of the virus
Might refer to virulence or how quickly the effects were ramped up. The most effective viruses are not the most transmissible (burn themselves out and/or are quickly noticed)
> now that Russia and Iran have a copy of stuxnet we're all doomed
not doomed per se, but it would probably be better for the average american if this hadn't happened. The worst thing about this, IMO, is that it set a very public precedent on the use of 'cyber-weaponry', costing the US moral high-ground
It wasn't scare quotes. It was an actual quote "US Vice President Joe Biden was quoted in the film as saying in a meeting that the Israelis 'changed the code' of the deadly virus’s software."
http://www.langner.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/To-kill... (36 page PDF)
Langner was the first researcher (outside of those who were involved in its creation) to discover Stuxnet.
> "Whatever the effect of the overpressure attack was, the attackers decided to try something different in 2009. That may have been motivated by the fact that the overpressure attack was lethal just by accident, that it didn’t achieve anything, or – that somebody simply decided to check out something new and fresh."
> "Summing up, the differences between the two Stuxnet variants discussed here are striking. In the newer version, the attackers became less concerned about being detected. It seems a stretch to say that they wanted to be discovered, but they were certainly pushing the envelope and accepting the risk."
> "The dramatic differences between both versions point to changing priorities that will most likely have been accompanied by a change in stakeholders. "
I wonder if that's when the Israelis got involved?
Also, this is shockingly readable for the depth and subject matter!
It's obviously a smear campaign against Israel, i'd take it with a grain of salt.
The difference here is that in an international setting, our national ego comes into play and suddenly it's all about the Israeli lobby or some deep geopolitical interests, when it could just as easily be caused by a SW bug or an overzealous midlevel manager.
Maybe there is a place for a broader discussion about supplying arms to Israel, but I don't think this case is a good example. Looks more like Israel and the US collaborated very closely, on mostly equal terms, to achieve some impressive technological breakthroughs. If anything, this is a testament to how technology and international cooperation can provide a safe and efficient alternative to unilateral use of of force. If the worst side-effect of all of our covert and overt operations was leaking some Zero Days, the world would be a much safer place.
Given the NSA's contradictory mandates to both improve and weaken security, I think you're definitely on to something.