Author Archives: Damion Hazael

In November 2012, we all watched with dismay as Hamas indiscriminately fired thousands of rockets at Israel over a six-day period. A few Israelis lost their lives and daily life was disrupted with frequent visits to the shelters, especially in the south of the country in towns like Sderot, Ashdod and Ashkelon.  A few rockets reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem but failed to cause any damage.

The events of November 2012 will above all be remembered for the extraordinary success of yet another technological miracle from Israel, the Iron Dome antimissile defence system. Iron Dome, according to reports released by the IDF, shot down about 84% of the incoming missiles it targeted.  The residents of Tel Aviv soon became so convinced of the outstanding capabilities of the Iron Dome that they stopped going to shelters, preferring to stand outdoors and watch the Iron Dome missiles streaking into the sky to bring down the incoming enemy missiles.

The success of the Iron Dome has made the whole world stand up and take note, especially these days, when we are subjected to daily threats of ballistic missile attacks from North Korea and their ally Iran. Up until now the accepted wisdom has been that the attacker has the advantage and that the defender cannot possibly deal with the incoming fire power. Iron Dome has shown that the tide is turning and that it is possible to defend effectively against enemy missiles. The success of Iron Dome has been such that a number of nations from conflicts zones, including the US, India, Singapore and South Korea, have shown interest in acquiring the Iron Dome system. It is believed that Singapore is the first country outside Israel to have already deployed Iron Dome.

In this article we take an in-depth look at Israel’s antimissile defences and we will tell the story of how Israel developed the Iron Dome system against all odds.

The Big Picture

Israel faces many threats from its neighbours and further afield. There is the immediate threat from terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas firing rockets into Israel. There is also the threat from Iran and Syria of long range ballistic missiles carrying conventional, chemical or even nuclear warheads.

Figure 1: Israel’s Antimissile Defence Systems

Figure 1 depicts Israel’s antimissile defence systems. As can be seen, Israel has been deploying four different systems in order to deal effectively with the threats it faces.

Iron Dome, which is the main subject of this article, has been developed to counter the threat posed by the short range (4km-70km) Qassam rockets built in Gaza, the more sophisticated Fajr-5 missiles provided to Hamas by Iran and the Katyusha rockets used by Hezbollah. Each Iron Dome battery provides a defensive umbrella of about 70km in radius. Iron Dome became operational in March 2011.

David’s Sling is a medium to long range (40km-300km) missile defence system being developed jointly with the US to address the threat posed by Zalzal-2 rockets located in Lebanon and the various missiles in Iran’s arsenal. This system uses a two-stage surface-to-air interceptor missile to destroy the incoming missile. The system was successfully tested in November 2012 and is expected to go into service later in 2013 or early 2014. It will replace the Patriot batteries provided by the United States.

Figure 2: Test firing of David’s Sling Missile

 Arrow  is a family of anti-ballistic missile defence systems. Arrow 2 has a range of (200 km-1000 km) whereas Arrow 3 has a range of up to 2000 km. They are designed to deal with any possible threat presented by surface-to-surface missiles acquired by the Arab countries or Iran (e.g. Shahab-2). Arrow 1 was first developed in the early 1990s and was replaced with the smaller Arrow 2  from 1996 onwards. New versions of Arrow 2 are being developed all the time; the current version under development is called Block-5. Arrow 3 is a new system being developed together with the US for intercepting ballistic missiles in outer space.

Figure 3: Arrow 2 missile

In part 2 we will concentrate on the story of the Iron Dome antimissile system.

© Mahir Ozdamar (2013)

8 April 2013 will be remembered for two pieces of sad news; that of the passing of Lady Thatcher, the first woman Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the passing of Sam Marks z”l, the life President of the Bournemouth Hebrew Congregation.

The news of the death of Lady Thatcher at the age of 87 has generated a wide range of reactions across the world. Whilst widely admired at home and across the world, nevertheless, Lady Thatcher had polarised public opinion at home and had made many enemies on the left of the political spectrum. She is widely credited with turning the United Kingdom from being the ‘sick man of Europe’ into a thriving and world leading economy, in the process changing the social and political structure of the country for ever. She targeted the trade unions, the inefficient industries that believed that it was their right to be protected from real world economics by government handouts, she encouraged individuals taking responsibility for themselves and their families. Whether you loved her or loathed her, you could not ignore her.

So what was her posture towards the Jews and Israel? For many years she was the MP for the Finchley constituency in north London which is known to have a large middle class Jewish presence. It is easy to overestimate the influence of this on her politics. The economic and social course she set for her country is exactly the one within which Jews have thrived by demonstrating personal endeavour, hard work and enterprise on a level playing field. Her legacy is influencing the present day Israeli society where high tech industry has thrived and has become world class when the restricting shackles of government intervention was removed.  She was a staunch supporter of Israel and did not hesitate to voice her admiration for the achievements of this young democracy. However, she was also forthright when she did not agree with the policies of the then Begin government but throughout her time in office she remained a true friend of Israel as reflected by the warm tributes paid to her by PM Benjamin Netanyahu and by President Shimon Peres.

Sam Marks z”l, on the other hand, did not divide opinion amongst the Jewish Community. He was a universally loved and much admired leader of our community whose passing leaves a void that cannot be filled. Sam, together with his dear wife Hilda, dedicated himself to the well being of the Jewish community in the UK and in Israel, supporting good causes with generosity, compassion and humility. His legacy will continue to benefit the lives of many, both here and in Israel, for many years to come. We send our condolences to Hilda, their son David and daughter Rochelle, grandchildren, great grandchildren and the whole family circle.

© Mahir Ozdamar

It took many people by surprise when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Turkish PM Erdogan on 22 March to apologise for the killing of nine Turkish nationals on board the Mavi Marmara in 2010. It appears that a deal was brokered by President Obama during his visit to Israel and the call was made from Ben Gurion Airport just before Obama left for Jordan.

The Israeli apology has been hailed as a major foreign policy success by the Turkish press and politician alike, whereas in Israel it has divided opinion. The Israeli defence forces and security services have come out in support of the move but the extreme right-wing Israeli politicians have taken the view that Israel should not have apologised. Those who do not support the apology point to the Parker report commissioned by the UN after the incident which stated that Israel had the legal right to take action. However, the same report also criticised Israeli soldiers for using excessive force. As is often the case, each side talked up those parts of the report that suited their purposes.

So, what is the deal? Turkey had made three major demands before they would agree to normalise relations: a full apology, reparations to be paid to the families of the deceased persons and the lifting of the Gaza blockade. Netanyahu’s apology for ‘operational mistakes’ has been accepted; discussions are underway to agree the amount to be paid to the families (between $100,000 and $1,000,000 per person – a joint committee will be set up to agree the amount) and Israel has agreed to review the extent of the blockade based on the circumstances on the ground. For their part, the Turkish Government has agreed not to continue with the court action against the Israel Defence Forces personnel.

Why was it important to reach a deal? What is in it for the parties involved? A lot has changed in the Middle East since the Mavi Marmara incident in 2010. The so called ‘Arab Spring’ has destabilised the region; the power of the Islamists is on the increase; the uprising in Syria has been going on for more than two years; the threat from Iran and its proxies is ever present. It is easy to see why the United States wanted the relations between Israel and Turkey to be normalised. It could not allow its two closest allies in the region to be at each other’s throats. Full cooperation between Israel and Turkey benefits the West and NATO. Israel needed the relations to be normalised so that Israel, Jordan and Turkey can cooperate on a daily basis to manage their respective borders with Syria and prevent dangerous materials such as chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Furthermore, Israeli Air force and Army had been keen to resume training in the Turkish air space and joint exercises with their Turkish counterparts in order to better prepare for any future hostilities with Iran. For its part, Turkey had grown warmer to the idea of normalising relations with Israel, having realised that hostility towards Israel had won them no new friends in the Arab world but had damaged their standing with the West. An Israeli source commented “We cannot operate in isolation in the region; we need strong regional as well as global allies”.

Since the start of the reconciliation process, Israeli defence contractors have signed new contracts, and security and defence cooperation is underway. On 24 March the Turkish media interviewed President Shimon Peres, who said “I can think of one thousand reasons why Turkey and Israel should be friends and I cannot find one reason why they shouldn’t be”. Right now, what is driving the reconciliation is practical good sense rather than love between the two sides. Netanyahu can justifiably feel that he has made the right call by putting the interests of the country ahead of political pride and posturing. Let’s hope that common sense continues to prevail on both sides so that they can work together to chart a safe course through these troubled and dangerous times for the region.

© M. Ozdamar (2013)

Part 3

Since the discovery of Stuxnet in 2010, further investigation has revealed that earlier versions of this malware have been in existence. Therefore it is concluded that Stuxnet, Duqu and Flame have been in operation possibly since 2005, collecting information and preparing to strike at the chosen moment. It is entirely possible that their developers used Duqu and Flame to collect information about their target systems before unleashing Stuxnet. It is also believed that an earlier version of Stuxnet failed to cause much damage but the latest version (called Stuxnet 1.0) caused considerable damage to Iran’s centrifuges. In January 2010, the IAEA reported that Iran had removed and disposed of between 1000 and 2000 centrifuges without giving any reason. It is now believed that this was the result of the damage caused by Stuxnet.

In the past three years the world has become aware of a new kind of warfare we call cyberwar. This war is not fought by armies, navies and air forces using guns, tanks, ships and aircraft, but by computer engineers sitting behind desks using their brainpower and expertise day after day. The effects, however, can be as devastating as the damage caused by conventional armed forces.

The discovery of Stuxnet, Flame and others like them marks a turning point in the way future geopolitical conflicts will be fought. They bring science fiction, once the domain of Hollywood movies, to everyday life with all its potential consequences.

People have been arguing whether the tens of millions that must have been spent in developing these malware were well spent, whether they have managed to delay Iran’s nuclear programme in any significant way. We probably will not know the answers to these questions for many years to come, just as we will not know how many more of these worms are out there doing their clandestine work until they are discovered.

What is clear, however, is that Stuxnet, Flame and others like them have opened a new frontier in geopolitical conflict and every nation-state will have to ready their defences against this threat. Nation-states are not the only ones showing a keen interest in these technologies. Sophisticated criminal organisations are also seeing what is possible and exploring how to benefit from them – a truly worrying prospect. Indeed, In October 2012, the US defence secretary Leon Panetta warned of the ‘cyber threat’ faced by the US and the damage it could cause not only to the US companies but also to infrastructure by poisoning water supplies, derailing trains, disabling power supply, etc., and asked US industry and educational institutions to prepare themselves to face this new threat.

As we have seen, cyberwar is an important 21^st century battleground, the soldiers of which are the brightest computer scientists from the best universities. Let’s make sure that we all support the Israeli universities that are working day and night to ensure that Israel is protected from cyber-attacks from her enemies and remains the most advanced force in fighting this new war.

© M. Ozdamar (2013)

Part 2

When, in June 2010, a small group of engineers from a Belarusian antivirus company discovered the existence of the computer worm called Stuxnet, they were astounded by the sophistication of this software. To begin to understand the sophistication of this worm, let us start with its size. It is only 500 kilobytes (500kb) in size, yet it performs astonishingly complex functions as we will see later. To put it into context, the average size of a single digital photograph is 2000kb; Stuxnet which is a quarter of the size of a digital photo has managed to bring chaos to 14 industrial sites!

Stuxnet works in three phases. First it targets Microsoft Windows computers and networks, repeatedly replicating itself. Then it searches for an industrial software developed by Siemens called Step 7, which is used to program industrial control systems that operate equipment such as the centrifuges used in uranium enrichment. Third, it interferes with the equipment controllers and takes over the control function without the human operators of the machines realising what is going on. It is believed that, through this process, Stuxnet has succeeded in destroying some centrifuges by causing the fast spinning centrifuges to tear themselves apart. Iran has not confirmed or denied that some centrifuges have been damaged due to Stuxnet.

In each stage of the operation summarised above, Stuxnet shows remarkable capabilities, starting from the first stage of finding its way into the first Windows computer, probably through a USB stick drive. How does it evade detection by the antivirus software on the computer? Stuxnet achieves this by providing a Windows digital certificate which claims that it comes from a reliable company, thus evading detection by antivirus systems.

Once safely active on the first computer, the worm checks whether the computer is part of the industrial control system made by Siemens. Iran uses such systems to run high-speed centrifuges to enrich uranium. If the system is not a target, the worm does nothing. If it is, it accesses the Internet and downloads the latest version of itself. The worm is now ready to proceed to take control of the target system, exploiting security vulnerabilities as yet not identified by the developers of these systems. Initially the worm monitors the operations of the target system and sends information to its handlers. Then it uses the information gathered and the commands received from its handlers to take control of the centrifuges, making them spin faster and faster until they destroy themselves.  The beauty of it is that, whilst all this is going on, the worm provides false information to the human operator of the centrifuges in order to make them think that everything is all right until it is too late.

How was it that a Belarusian company came to discover the existence of Stuxnet?  The company was approached by an unidentified client to determine why its industrial machines were restarting over and over again. The investigation led to a piece of ‘malware’ (malicious software) that had a digital certificate. This fact caused alarm in the antivirus detection community, which hitherto had not checked software with a legitimate certificate. Further investigation revealed that this particular malware was designed to attack Siemens control software.

As the antivirus community investigated Stuxnet further and cast a wider net, it became clear that Stuxnet was not a one-off but was likely to be one of a family of malware including Duqu, Flame and Gauss. Duqu is a worm discovered by Budapest University in September 2011, following the notoriety of Stuxnet. Like Stuxnet, it targets Iran’s nuclear programme, aiming to steal information held on computers and communicate it to its handlers. Flame can be described as an electronic spy which records everything going on at a computer (including Skype calls, screenshots, keystrokes, network traffic, etc.) and communicates the information to its handlers. It was discovered in May 2012 by Kaspersky, a Russian antivirus company, Budapest University and Iran’s Computer Emergency Response Team. It has been described as one of the most sophisticated malware ever discovered. It had infected computers in the Middle East, mostly in Iran and some in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt and even Israel. Once it was identified, its authors sent out a ‘kill’ command deactivating and erasing the Flame worm. Finally Gauss, found in July 2012, also appears to have had surveillance and information gathering as its main purpose, this time targeting bank accounts in Lebanon, which would provide extremely useful information to a nation-state for obvious reasons.

In Part 3 of this article we will examine the consequences and the future of the 21^st Century cyberwar.

© M. Ozdamar (2013)

Part 1

We have all heard of computer viruses. We often get emails from friends and family warning us not to open this or that message or to ignore a message with such and such in the title. Viruses can, if opened inadvertently, infect your computer and can cause the computer to malfunction or worse still send confidential information held in your computer to some criminal organisation, often overseas.

Until June 2010 the world worried about computer viruses and the damage they can cause to our increasingly computer-controlled world. Since the advent of mass computing in the 1980’s the banking sector has been a prime target for hackers, closely followed by the defence establishments. Indeed, there are many well-known stories, including the recent one of a lone hacker from Essex hacking into Pentagon’s computers, thousands of miles away, in order to find out what they hold in their files about alien encounters.

The results of maliciously accessing computers would be even more devastating to the wider population if the computers of utility companies were targeted. For example, imagine a criminal organisation targeting the computers of a water utility, which controls the sanitisation of water for a large part of the country. By changing the computer programs they could disrupt the sanitisation process, thus disrupting water supply or worse still, leaving untreated water to be delivered to the users.

Thankfully, there are a number of well-developed computer programs, called anti-virus software, which are designed to protect our computers against viruses. Problems arise when computer users do not keep their anti-virus software up-to-date and use it regularly. Furthermore, we are all lazy about managing our passwords, changing them regularly, etc. This extends even to those people at the Pentagon, responsible for protecting the secrets of America’s defence department.

However, none of what we have seen for the past 30 years can be considered as cyberwar. In June 2010, the engineers from a Belarusian antivirus company discovered the existence of a new threat, a computer worm called Stuxnet. A computer worm is different from a computer virus in that whereas a computer virus relies on an unsuspecting user installing a piece of software containing the virus and then inadvertently sending it to someone else, the computer worm can find its way from computer to computer using local computer networks or over the Internet, infecting and controlling an ever growing number of computers in the process.

The Stuxnet worm astounded the computer world and brought a new threat hitherto confined to science fiction to our everyday world. It transpired that the Stuxnet worm had infected 14 industrial sites in Iran, including their uranium enrichment plant, causing serious damage. It soon became clear that the Stuxnet worm was so advanced in its design and implementation that it could only have been developed through state-sponsorship; in other words, it was too sophisticated to have been developed by private individuals or organisations. Here what we have is a nation-state targeting the facilities of another nation-state with the intention of causing harm. This is why we call it cyberwar rather than another computer virus or hacking attack.

There are few countries in the world which possess the technology and skills to execute such a task. This, coupled with the nature of the target, has pointed the finger at Israel and the United States as the state sponsors of Stuxnet. Here we have two countries in the Premier League of computer technology, closely followed by Russia, Belarus and a few others. As we have come to expect, Israel has neither acknowledged nor denied involvement in the development and the unleashing of Stuxnet, but among experts there is little doubt that Israel has had the motivation and the skills to have carried out this audacious attack.

In Part 2 of this article we will explore the background to Stuxnet, how it works, how it infected Iran’s industrial facilities; in Part 3 we will consider the future of cyberwar , what it means for the Middle East and the wider world.