you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 55 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Stuxnet would like to have a word

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    disconnected from existing digital infrastructure

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent