On the other hand, if their system were hypothetically vulnerable to the point that a cyber attack could (intentionally or otherwise) cause serious nuclear variety catastrophies, better that "some hacker" be pulling stunts like this and wake up the people running the place to their security situation than have them continue on clueless of their vulnerabilities until someone meaning serious harm comes along.

Not really a safe assumption that just because you choose not to screw with nuclear systems that nobody else ever will.

You're not seriously advocating that infecting a network (any network) thereby exposing systems to further compromise and potentially dropping those compromised systems into the lap of any number of idiot script-kiddies is somehow a public service? 

Of course knowing one's vulnerabilities is always preferable but I guarantee that those "serious folks" you allude to have not ever and will not ever be stopped by "better security".  Just like with physical security, those who want in badly enough.......get in. 

In that case, then, you blast them with Whitney Houston's version of 'I Will Always Love You" and hope it influences their thinking to making love not war.

Or

LOL @Ryat.

Maybe "The House is on Fi-ire".

I wouldn't quite say that, the public service equivalent would be more along the lines of offering to help fix a vulnerability you discover rather than exploiting it to make the point. Then again, some people learn lessons much better when they've been embarassed, and I'm not sure intentionally helping Iran is really a popular agenda these days.

All I was saying is that I do not share the concern expressed that such shannanigans are best avoided due to hypothetical risks of unintended nuclear doomsday side affects. Sure, maybe it's possible, but I consider exploitation of such weaknesses to be an inevitability anyways, so really don't object to the small stuff.

Not sure how you read that into what Wiz wrote.

A vulnerable system is vulnerable, and further vulnerabilities might occur. If that results in further damage, the solution isn't "don't touch in the first place". The solution is "stop this insane crap". Unfortunately, they are insane and they won't stop until they are stopped decisively.

Such a sensitive system should not have had internet access (if it did) nor more than one extremely secure access point. It shouldn't have existed in the first place. If it causes the Iranians problems, I won't shed a tear. If the damage harms the innocent? That's the collateral damage that occurs when maniacs aren't dealt with rapidly and lethally. Learn from it.

The whole point of delaying Iran is to prevent the inevitable until after the election (if that's at all possible) or until sanctions work (the loop holes, etc. have defeated that). Since Iran seems to be hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons, the end of this scenario is a disaster, no matter what. 

Do you see Ahmadinejad relenting? If not, the conflict is inevitable. An Iran with a nuclear weapon is not going to happen. No one is going to tolerate that: Certainly not Israel, and Israel's survival will be ensured by the Israelis themselves. They have grave doubts about American resolve (and they should).

They've witnessed how much the world cares about them in the past. In the "throw away" world of convenience and immediate gratification, what does it matter if Israel survives or not? It doesn't, except to the Israelis. And seriously? I wouldn't screw with them. Backing a person or a state into a corner is extremely unwise, especially when it's capabilities (those you know of) are formidable, and Netanyahu isn't a 'fluff'. He served in the toughest (land based), elite IDF unit. 

Are you referring to Iran's secretive efforts at developing a nuclear strike capacity? Or (like most) only to Israel or the US? Seems to me these were efforts made to discourage what Iran is doing.

For the sake of clarity, my point was that software/malware does not always work as intended. Computer systems do not always  respond to commands as expected. "Some hacker" being lone prankster or world power, gets no guarantee  that the effect desired is what they will get. Things set in motion from a remote location may or may not be halted at the target location. (In the case of nuclear weaponry, Light fuse, run very, very far away for a very, very long time.)

Anybody ever have malware that did more damage with it's removal than it would have if it was just left in place?  Yes?  Me too. Is Iran's Geek Squad up to the task of protecting and maintaining their sensitive systems?

One other point. If Iran has the minds and the resources to develop nuclear weapons, they can also develop other attack strategies.  Internet weapons would no doubt prove cheaper to make and easier to deploy.  I have no desire to see WW III fought over the Internet during my lifetime.

I believe the "proper" use of such system penetration would be for good old fashioned spying. Information gathering by whatever means possible. An exposed enemy is an easily defeated enemy.

Someone blew a great chance to gather data for the sake of a little humor. (or did they?)

When an entity (such as the US) has placed themselves at the top of the food-chain, then yes.........they must behave beyond reproach. 

When aggressive, arrogant, and downright criminal actions such as those at the "Tarnak Farms Incident" where some hoorah warrior wanted to F(reedom)-up some hadji ass so badly he killed 4 canadians and injured 8 and his charges get all but dropped that says something to the world.  Something which the US will learn to reap for years to come..........

Those yank pilots should be in prison.  The fact that they aren't, tells the world that the yanks govern their own with disregard for law (in case Guantanamo bay didn't already drive that point home) so why should anyone else bow to it?  The self-proclaimed enforcers of same do nothing but scorn it...........I hear surfing.....errr....water boarding is a national sport at Guantanamo.......

As far as I'm concerned......the US is the very last nation on earth that should/could even call anyone else on their behaviour.  That is my decidedly "american" stance on the subject.

How would it be if the Canadians were to take over the defense of North America and we in America could call out our friends north of the border for their philosophical shortcomings and alleged mistakes.   Wonder if there would be as many Canadian jackholes around then.  It's easy to be critical of the guy rowing the boat when you are just free riding.  That's my decidedly "canadian" stance on the subject.

Something along these lines and up your alley, Doc.