5 ms·

Were they actually "caught", or was it simply determined that the level of sophistication was something that could only have come from state-sponsored malware (

by jsolson 12y ago

Were they actually "caught", or was it simply determined that the level of sophistication was something that could only have come from state-sponsored malware (a claim I find dubious at best, but whatever)?

kyboren 12y ago
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/08/snowden_us_israel_stuxnet/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/08/snowden_us_israel_st...
resu_nimda 12y ago
I'm curious, why do you find that claim dubious? That is the conclusion of numerous top security experts, not just some pundits with an agenda. It seems like you're scoffing at the idea that only a national government could produce software that is "that good," or maybe even that they could at all, but mere code quality is not the whole basis for the claim. It's also the (initially) extremely precise target, the intelligence needed to affect the physical results they were after (disruption of uranium enrichment centrifuges), and the unprecedented effort to cover all tracks of the worm. Ralph Langner, whose team did a lot of the primary technical investigation into the worm, has said "the leading force behind Stuxnet is the cyber superpower – there is only one; and that's the United States." Here's his hour-long technical breakdown (with code): http://www.digitalbond.com/blog/2012/01/31/langners-stuxnet-deep-dive-s4-video/ http://www.digitalbond.com/blog/2012/01/31/langners-stuxnet-... His TED talk on Stuxnet: http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon#t-11945 http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21... A less technical article, which Schneier reposted as "the definitive analysis of Stuxnet [short version]": http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/19/stuxnets_secret_twin_iran_nukes_cyber_attack?page=full http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/19/stuxnets_se... There are also numerous bits of circumstantial evidence detailed on Wikipedia. A former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was put under investigation by the DoJ last year for allegedly leaking info on Stuxnet and "Operation Olympic Games." At this point it's all but certain, I think one would need a pretty good reason to be doubtful.
- jsolson 12y ago
  > I'm curious, why do you find that claim dubious? That is the conclusion of numerous top security experts, not just some pundits with an agenda. It's entirely the notion that it could only have been state sponsored that I have trouble with. While there may be no organization with resources comparable to the US government to throw at cyber security in general, there are certainly organizations which can throw large resources at any given particular problem. Of course, other organizations that might have had the resources to create Stuxnet wouldn't have had the motive or the relevant context (knowledge of details of Iran's nuclear enrichment program) to do so. In that regard I don't doubt in the slightest that it was state sponsored malware, but I think it's dangerous to claim that anything could only have been state sponsored, as it accords a level of resourcing to the state that likely also applies to, e.g., organized crime or exceptionally large corporations who might not have our best interests at heart (not that I think the state always does either, mind you). That said, my original question was genuine. I didn't follow Stuxnet after the initial speculation that it looked like a state sponsored project, and thus I didn't know whether we'd been officially caught or whether it was still (extremely well founded) speculation.
walshemj 12y ago
The fact that to build stuxnet required building an exact copy of the target uranium enrichment plant indicates that it was done by one or more states with deep pockets

by jsolson 12y ago

kyboren 12y ago

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/08/snowden_us_israel_stuxnet/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/08/snowden_us_israel_st...

resu_nimda 12y ago

I'm curious, why do you find that claim dubious? That is the conclusion of numerous top security experts, not just some pundits with an agenda. It seems like you're scoffing at the idea that only a national government could produce software that is "that good," or maybe even that they could at all, but mere code quality is not the whole basis for the claim. It's also the (initially) extremely precise target, the intelligence needed to affect the physical results they were after (disruption of uranium enrichment centrifuges), and the unprecedented effort to cover all tracks of the worm. Ralph Langner, whose team did a lot of the primary technical investigation into the worm, has said "the leading force behind Stuxnet is the cyber superpower – there is only one; and that's the United States." Here's his hour-long technical breakdown (with code): http://www.digitalbond.com/blog/2012/01/31/langners-stuxnet-deep-dive-s4-video/ http://www.digitalbond.com/blog/2012/01/31/langners-stuxnet-... His TED talk on Stuxnet: http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon#t-11945 http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21... A less technical article, which Schneier reposted as "the definitive analysis of Stuxnet [short version]": http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/19/stuxnets_secret_twin_iran_nukes_cyber_attack?page=full http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/19/stuxnets_se... There are also numerous bits of circumstantial evidence detailed on Wikipedia. A former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was put under investigation by the DoJ last year for allegedly leaking info on Stuxnet and "Operation Olympic Games." At this point it's all but certain, I think one would need a pretty good reason to be doubtful.

jsolson 12y ago
> I'm curious, why do you find that claim dubious? That is the conclusion of numerous top security experts, not just some pundits with an agenda. It's entirely the notion that it could only have been state sponsored that I have trouble with. While there may be no organization with resources comparable to the US government to throw at cyber security in general, there are certainly organizations which can throw large resources at any given particular problem. Of course, other organizations that might have had the resources to create Stuxnet wouldn't have had the motive or the relevant context (knowledge of details of Iran's nuclear enrichment program) to do so. In that regard I don't doubt in the slightest that it was state sponsored malware, but I think it's dangerous to claim that anything could only have been state sponsored, as it accords a level of resourcing to the state that likely also applies to, e.g., organized crime or exceptionally large corporations who might not have our best interests at heart (not that I think the state always does either, mind you). That said, my original question was genuine. I didn't follow Stuxnet after the initial speculation that it looked like a state sponsored project, and thus I didn't know whether we'd been officially caught or whether it was still (extremely well founded) speculation.

walshemj 12y ago

The fact that to build stuxnet required building an exact copy of the target uranium enrichment plant indicates that it was done by one or more states with deep pockets