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

Technology

59207 readers
3055 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 81 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The flip side of this is that hackers can brick the same machines.....

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 55 points 5 months ago (13 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.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 44 points 5 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@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

That would be clever.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Stuxnet would like to have a word

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 15 points 5 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 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.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 6 points 5 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 11 points 5 months ago

Geopolitics aside, the technical architecture implementation of this mechanism is really interesting for me. I think over all, having extra ability to disable these systems would prevent US launching attacks against the plants — which could cause spill over local civilian injuries — but there’s just so many more things to consider.

Is it a dead-man switch style of setup, where if it doesn’t get authorization from HQ after some time, it will stop working? Or is it a kill switch style of setup, where they can remotely issue a command to stop operation? Because different vectors then come up depending on the securing method. For example: Dead-man switch might be tricked/overcame by turning back the clock, whereas kill switch might be circumvented by severing the network connection before the command could be issued (literally cut the underwater cables before they start the invasion).

How is the mechanism itself secured? If it is certificate based like everything else, then we’d have to worry about the certificate signing authority getting pressured into signing certificates by state backed actors.

Would really love to learn about the setup one day after all these is over, to learn about the thinkings that’s been done on such an important piece of … “infrastructure”?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 69 points 5 months ago (33 children)

i assume by disable they probably mean, something along the lines of irreversibly contaminating the whole of the assembly line.

I'd be curious to know how specifically they're going about this.

[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Ok winnie the pooh, like they are going to tell you

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Probably wiping process control code from the systems that contain tons of fiddly hard to find constants and other information.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well that's less fun than detcord or mission impossible style self-immolating electronics.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 5 points 5 months ago

Yes, but Taiwan is not China and they need to be able to do that even if there are people in the building.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Goodie@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm really hoping for thermite. A lot of thermite.

thermites a good one, not quite instantaneous, but still pretty good.

Would certainly be a good counter for hardware.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They could probably overload the circuitry to make it unusable. Or use like, IDK, mini explosives?

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago (8 children)

true, you could just blast the ever living shit out the circuitry, rendering it completely non functional. That's another good one for sensors and shit as well.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 46 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Just disable?

I've heard for years now that they have those chip fabs rigged to explode, as to not let them fall into China's hands.

[–] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 39 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (15 children)

The US Army War College published a paper outlining the plan awhile back.

To start, the United States and Taiwan should lay plans for a targeted scorched-earth strategy that would render Taiwan not just unattractive if ever seized by force, but positively costly to maintain. This could be done most effectively by threatening to destroy facilities belonging to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the most important chipmaker in the world and China’s most important supplier.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 12 points 5 months ago

First day of job training is to keep the one machine running that keeps the place from exploding.

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 37 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

"Disable" like we disabled Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] fubarx@lemmy.ml 35 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Media: So... you know those high-tech chipmaking machines? The ones banned for sale to China. The ones needed to make the processors for phones, cars, TVs, and AI servers. What happens if China invades Taiwan? Doesn't Taiwan have a lot of those machines?

Manufacturer: not a problem.

Media: Phew. Glad that's settled..... Say, how come?

Manufacturer: (slaps the roof of the $250M machine). We can lock this baby remotely. In fact, here's the remote (pulls out a keyfob).

Media: OK, cool, cool.

Techies of the world: WHAT THE ACTUAL FU..... !!!

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 25 points 5 months ago

Techies: what if it bricks accidentally?

Manufacturer: *spinning the key fob* we didn't think that far, to be honest

A few moments later

Manufacturer: *proceeds to drop the remote and accidentally bricks everything*

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 30 points 5 months ago

I mean, I’d say that too even if untrue, if I were in their position.

[–] corroded@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (6 children)

This is a good thing, but it's hardly unique. Any advanced manufacturing facility will have remote access to their equipment in case an operator needs reconfigure it, transfer data, or in this case if they're invaded by Lesser Taiwan.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 points 5 months ago

I'm assuming "disable" in this case is slightly more than just turning it off. I wouldn't be surprised if the building isn't left standing after it's "disabled" here.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 18 points 5 months ago (6 children)

The question is if their remote disable will be triggered before the US blows the factory up anyway.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] andrewth09@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Neo-scorched earth policy.

[–] Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago

Ha ha being British I read "chip-making machines" totally differently and thought "Bit harsh"

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Why the hell would they advertise this is beyond me...

[–] SineIraEtStudio@midwest.social 53 points 5 months ago (11 children)

My understanding is that some of the benefits China would get from invading Taiwan is the control of Taiwan's world-leading semiconductor industry. So making it public knowledge that any invading force (i.e. China) would not be able to take over their production capabilities is a small deterrent.

[–] Aviandelight@mander.xyz 20 points 5 months ago

It's a small deterrent for China but a bigger incentive for other countries to defend Taiwan.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›