> 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

> 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.