4 ms·
The actual monitoring is done by the embedded controller, Windows is just there for displaying fancy panels and programming the devices.
by lima 8y ago
The actual monitoring is done by the embedded controller, Windows is just there for displaying fancy panels and programming the devices.
- jaclaz 8y agoOk, still seemingly the trick Stuxnet used was looping a good copy of those fancy panels and (still through windows) changing (slightly) the operating parameters of the machine, so in this case Windows (directly or indirectly) was capable of monitoring the device and change its operating status.
- kchr 8y agoAre you saying that there are no zero-days for platforms other than Windows? There could just as well have been a Linux computer used as interface to the embedded system that runs the centrifuges, that could be owned.
- jaclaz 8y agoNot really saying that, of course any OS is hackable, Linux also is not normally a RTOS with the exception of RT Linux, and possibly some other specific distro's. What I was trying to say is that something that has a more direct connection to the device is less likely to be prone on this specific kind of attack, which is AFAICU a sort of MITM (displaying a loop of the recorded display), and of course with a very "vertical" and "dedicated" operating system there should be less chances of the "casual" insertion of a USB stick in it (and possibly even no USB port at all on the actual hardware used).