The whole article is flawed. It sounds more like an advertisement for Symantec anything else. The title alone is a slap in the face of the many volunteers and

The whole article is flawed. It sounds more like an advertisement for Symantec anything else. The title alone is a slap in the face of the many volunteers and various companies that analyzed Stuxnet. Also, in the very first paragraph the author admits that he looked onesidedly at Symantic and nowhere else. And he even makes this sound like something great ("chance to attend a special briefing at Symantec's headquarters"). Ouch. At least he admits this biased view at the very end of the article: > NB: I have done some consulting work for Symantec over the past few years on a variety of security-related projects. If you want to get some real insights into what techniques were used by Stuxnet, I recommend to watch the 27c3 presentation "Building Custom Disassemblers" by FX: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ezff6LIoI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ezff6LIoI Starting at minute 2:00 he talks about what role he played in the analysis, what obfuscation techniques were used by Stuxnet, and how much some important flaws in the official PLC development tools of Siemens (especially their disassembler) contributed to the problems with analyzing Stuxnet.