4 ms·
"Several layers of masking obscured the zero-day exploit inside, requiring work to reach it, and the malware was huge — 500k bytes, as opposed to the usual 10k
by c16 14y ago
"Several layers of masking obscured the zero-day exploit inside, requiring work to reach it, and the malware was huge — 500k bytes, as opposed to the usual 10k to 15k." - http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/how-digital-detectives-deciphered-stuxnet/all/1 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/how-digital-detecti...
This is a great read and very informative!
- ArbitraryLimits 14y agoYes it is, but your parent post was asking how they knew how large the source code was. This quotation is reporting the size of the final binary.
- schiffern 14y agoWhere did the article say 'source code'? Machine code is still 'code'. You have to consider the audience the NY Times is targeting. Just knowing what a compiler is puts one in relatively sparse company.