Hacking of Ships

[BillTre]

Some ships getting hacked has been in the news lately.
This guy, Sal Mercogliano (one of my favorites), goes into many aspects of this.

 

[jedishrfu]

Interesting, it reminds me of the utility company's claims about how systems get attacked; in the utility case, NOVA showed how it could be attacked by targeting a programmable logic controller.

The utility industry didn't think it could be attacked.

 

[OmCheeto]

Weird. I'm 40 minutes into a movie recommended by AI called 'Leave the World Behind', and now I'm freaking out!

 

[Astronuc]

The utility industry didn't think it could be attacked.

If a digital device is connected to the internet, it can be attacked!

I took a course in Digital Relaying/Remote terminal unit (RTU) about 40 years ago, before the internet. We covered the utility of remote digital (microprocessing) relays and systems. Utilities could monitor voltage, current and reactive power remotely, which is helpful in determining margins to load limits. Fast forward to the 2010s/2020s, network resilience and cybersecurity are concerns. The concerns relate to "microprocessor-controlled electronic devices that connect physical field equipment to a central control system like a SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) network" over the Internet, which introduces vulnerabilities because nefarious actors can locate and attack those electronic devices (relays) in the field and the computers/servers collecting the data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_terminal_unit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCADA

Any digital device connected to the Internet can become a target for nefarious actors, whether cybercriminal or cyberwarfare.

 

[Hornbein]

It is somehow little known that USA hackers blew up a gas pipeline internal to Russia. The Russians were using pirated USA software to operate the pumps. The explosion was so large some analysts thought it was nuclear.

 

[berkeman]

It is somehow little known that USA hackers blew up a gas pipeline internal to Russia. The Russians were using pirated USA software to operate the pumps. The explosion was so large some analysts thought it was nuclear.

That would be interesting to read about. Link?

 

[DaveE]

That would be interesting to read about. Link?

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss

 

[Hornbein]

That would be interesting to read about. Link?

I read it in the 2004 memoir of Thomas C. Reed, a former Reagan White House official. He said (copied from AI ) that in 1982 the CIA used a digital Trojan Horse to cause a massive explosion in a Siberian Soviet pipeline. The story states that the KGB was detected trying to pirate automated pump control software from a Canadian firm. The CIA allegedly altered the software before allowing it to be stolen, programming a "logic bomb" into the code that overpressurized the pipeline valves and triggered a massive non-nuclear explosion.

This sabotage is widely denied, but that's what would happen if the story is true so that is neither here nor there. What I recall is that the CIA intelligence guy who detected the explosion ran to warn others that it could be nuclear but was calmly told not to worry about it.

The Stuxnet Iran centrifuge destruction hack is boasted of by the USA so they certainly have engaged in similar operations.

No one denies that the explosion occurred. The drama of an extremely powerful explosion seems like major news whether or not it was sabotage, so why is it so little known? The much smaller Lebanon fertilizer explosion was a big story, yes?

 

[berkeman]

I read it in the 2004 memoir of Thomas C. Reed, a former Reagan White House official. He said (copied from AI ) that in 1982 the CIA used a digital Trojan Horse to cause a massive explosion in a Siberian Soviet pipeline.

Well if it happened, there must have been mainstream news articles about it then. Please find and post those links now. Thank you.

 

[Hornbein]

Well if it happened, there must have been mainstream news articles about it then. Please find and post those links now. Thank you.

Here's a Washington Post article entitled "Reagan Approved Plan to Sabotage Soviets".
It only quotes the book, making no move to either confirm or challenge what it says. But giving it that headline without qualification implies the WP had faith in Mr. Reed. At the time of the incident he was President Reagan's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs. Apparently that gives him credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...soviets/a9184eff-47fd-402e-beb2-63970851e130/

Then there's Russian media. How about The Moscow Times?

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/kgb-veteran-denies-cia-caused-82-blast

• Vasily Pchelintsev, a KGB veteran who led the Tyumen regional unit in the early 1980s, called the story “complete nonsense” in a 2004 Trud interview. He confirmed the explosion but attributed it to poor construction: omitted thermal expansion joints and improper pipe weighting in swampy ground. Seasonal temperature swings caused pipeline deformation and rupture. The fire spread to a second nearby pipeline — no cyber involvement was ever alleged internally.
• Vladimir Zahmatov, Doctor of Technical Sciences, similarly dismissed the CIA diversion theory. He emphasized that pipeline systems in the 1980s were not computer-controlled and required manual dispatcher oversight. He also argued that claims of a 3-kiloton gas explosion are physically implausible in open-air settings.

Quotation from https://industrialcyber.co/expert/t...ims-of-physical-consequences-in-cyberattacks/

I don't expect to be able to confirm whether or not anything appeared in Trud.

So two mutually hostile sources agree the explosion took place. Who is telling the truth about sabotage? Beats me. The independent Repository of Industrial Security Incidents [RISI] accepts the explosion and declares sabotage "Likely but unconfirmed."